Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely—

Marriages Provisional Orders Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day.

CAMBORNE WATER BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Ordered,
That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAYBILL.

Considered; to be read the Third time.

GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Greenock Port and Harbours," presented by Mr. T. Johnston, and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act), to be considered upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 33.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

PATENTS AND REGISTERED DESIGNS (FEES).

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the cost of applying to the court for the suspension of patent fees is greater than the amount of the fees;

and, in the light of this fact, will he review the question of the suspension of fees where the patentees are prevented using their patents owing to the Concentration of Industry Scheme and the Limitation of Supplies Order?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lyttelton): The object of an application to the court is to obtain not a suspension of current fees but an extension of the term of the patent. This is a future right which may have considerable value. I am, however, considering whether applications for the extension of the term of patents on account of war losses, to which I referred in my answer to my hon. Friend on 20th May, can be simplified.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. Hammersley: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in respect to approved voluntary schemes for the concentration of production in the cotton trade, units included in such voluntary schemes will be exempt from payments to, or receipts from, any general pool of compensation that may subsequently be formed?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir, provided that under the voluntary schemes a degree of concentration is achieved that corresponds to the general level of concentration required from other firms.

Mr. Hammersley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the first authoritative statement in connection with this important matter, that there has been a good deal of confused and often contradictory advice, and that in the result, through the trade not having clear direction in the matter, there have been very few voluntary schemes submitted?

Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir, I am not aware of that. I know there have not been many voluntary schemes in the trade, but I do not think that has been due to lack of information on this point.

RETAIL TRADERS.

Commander Bower: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the widespread alarm among shopkeepers which has been created by the policy of his Department in recommending that they should realise their stocks and find other jobs; and whether he will make an early and comprehensive statement on the matter?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the speech which I made on 10th April. I regret that my remarks have been widely misrepresented. I would call attention to the OFFICIAL REPORT of my speech, from which it should be clear that I was not making any statement of policy, but was merely putting forward the suggestion that in individual cases retailers might find it prudent to consider whether they should not realise their stocks and find other jobs. My right hon. Friend is not in a position to make any further statement on this matter, pending the investigation into retail trade problems by the committee which was announced on 13th May.

Commander Bower: Is the Minister aware that a statement of that sort, coming from a Minister, carries a good deal of weight, even when it is slightly misrepresented by certain organs of the Press? A good many shopkeepers will be grateful for the statement which my hon. and gallant Friend has made to-day.

Mr. Shinwell: Would the Minister regard it as prudent to make to the Board of Trade a similar suggestion that retailers should realise their stocks?

Captain Waterhouse: My suggestion was that, in considering various means of meeting the exigencies of the war, this means should be taken into consideration, and on that statement I stand.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will endeavour to establish priority of supply to the small trader who deals in tobacco, cigarettes, sweets and chocolates, rather than to other suppliers, such as cinemas, clubs and canteens, who stock these commodities as side lines; and whether he is aware that the competition which is being created by the canteens, extends beyond the above-mentioned goods to such articles as ink, paper and soap, the supply of which is in direct competition to, and tends to destroy, the small trader?

Captain Waterhouse: I am aware that cinemas, clubs and canteens compete to some extent with both large and small shops. This problem falls within the ambit of the committee on retail trade which, as announced on 13th May, is being

set up. As my hon. Friend will know, the special arrangements, whereby the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes were formerly able to get unrestricted supplies of certain goods controlled under the Limitation of Supplies Orders for their canteens, were cancelled some time ago.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not an unassailable truth that the small trader is not getting sufficient consideration from the Government? Will the Government really consider the small trader, who is the backbone of this country? It is useless to go on like this.

Captain Waterhouse: The Government have set up a committee to consider this matter and my hon. Friend ought to be satisfied that the committee will get all the necessary information and lay it before the Government in order that action may be taken.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not all this action being taken after the Minister has told the retailers that they ought to consider it prudent to realise their stocks?

Captain Waterhouse: If the hon. Gentleman would read the speech I do not think he would make remarks of that sort.

Mr. De la Bère: It is all very inconsistent.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

OFFICERS' FIELD ALLOWANCE.

Mr. Crowder: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding officers' field allowance?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law): I am afraid that I am not in a position to make a statement at this stage.

Mr. Crowder: Will my hon. Friend do his best to expedite some decision in this matter, because it has been going on for many months now, and there is great dissatisfaction at the way in which the field allowance is arranged in different commands?

Mr. Law: I am aware that the field allowance does cause certain anomalies, but one has to be very careful in removing anomalies to see that one does not create still more. The matter is being considered.

HOME GUARD.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will favourably consider the payment of out-of-pocket expenses to volunteers anxious to attend Home Guard schools but at present unable to do so because of the cost?

Mr. Law: Existing instructions already provide for the payment of out-of-pocket expenses for volunteers attending Home Guard schools. Accommodation and rations are provided free of charge for the period of the course, and travelling expenses are admissible for journeys to and from the school. In addition, a detention allowance is payable where the volunteer is compelled to spend a night away from home on the journey.

Mr. Hall: Could those instructions Be made more widely known, as quite a number of people in the Home Guard are not aware that they can get out-of-pocket expenses, and they cannot afford to go to the schools and pay their own expenses?

Mr. Law: I hope the reply I have given will get some publicity.

CHURCH PARADES.

Mr. Bernard Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that soldiers, at two camps of which he has been informed, of religious persuasion other than the Church of England, are compelled to attend the Church of England parade; and will he take steps to prevent this occurring in future?

Mr. Law: King's Regulations provide that no officer or soldier will be obliged to attend the service of any religious denomination other than his own. At the two camps to which my hon. Friend refers, men of other denominations were apparently detailed to attend the Church of England parade, although it was explained to them that they were not obliged to enter the church or attend the service. The local military headquarters took immediate steps to stop this practice as soon as it came to their notice, and orders to this effect were issued on 5th May.

Captain John Dugdak: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of commanding officers interpret this particular instruction as permitting them to compel troops to match to the door of the church

and to march away from the church, and that the only right the men have is to wait outside the church, possibly in the rain, while the service continues?

Mr. Law: If that is the understanding of the commanding officers, it is an erroneous one, and I will see what steps can be taken to bring this to their notice.

Mr. Cocks: Is it correct for a commanding officer to say that if a man does not attend church parade, he will not have leave? Does that have the support of the War Office?

Mr. Law: I cannot speak of that. The church parade is obligatory on the soldier. The only point raised in the Question, which I want to make clear, is that there is no obligation on a soldier to attend the church of any denomination except his own.

Mr. Bellenger: What does the hon. Gentleman mean? Does he mean that the soldier must attend his church parade? The hon. Gentleman gave the impression in a previous answer that this was not so.

Mr. Law: The soldier is not obliged to attend the church of any denomination other than his own.

LEAVE.

Mr. Bernard Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will inquire into the unsatisfactory conditions respecting week-end passes and leave to men serving with a unit of which he has been informed, and, if necessary, take steps to rectify the matter?

Mr. Law: If my hon. Friend will let me know in what respect he considers that the arrangements for leave in the unit to which he refers are unsatisfactory, I shall be glad to look into the matter.

PENSIONS.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the terms of Article 1116 of the Royal Warrant for Pay, whereby a soldier having completed his term of service and qualified for a pension, is compulsorily detained during a national emergency, are being implemented by the issue of pensions in such cases?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir. Soldiers who have completed their pensionable engagement plus the extra year's service required by


Section 87 (1) of the Army Act have the option of an immediate pension or of continuing to reckon service for pension with a view to a higher ultimate award on their discharge. An instruction on this subject has recently been issued and is being brought to the notice of all concerned.

WAR-TIME PROFICIENCY PAY.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether Army reservists enlisted into the Royal Artillery before October, 1925, and not possessing a second-class certificate of education, are entitled to draw war proficiency pay, if otherwise qualified, similarly to those soldiers called up under the National Service Act, for whom no educational test is required?

Mr. Law: In view of their more favourable conditions of service, it was decided that war-time proficiency pay should not be granted to soldiers serving on the pre-1925 rates of pay, who would continue to be eligible for proficiency pay under peace-time conditions. Soldiers serving on the pre-1925 scale were, however, given the option of coming on to the post-1925 scale in any case where, as a result of the introduction of war-time proficiency pay, the latter scale was more favourable to them than their existing scale.

Mr. Bellenger: When a soldier elects to remain on the pre-1925 conditions, must he still have a second-class certificate of education in order to enable him to draw proficiency pay?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir. When he elects to stay on the pre-1925 conditions, I imagine that is so, but he will only elect to do so because it is to his advantage.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the hon. Gentleman look at Article 1015 of the Pay Warrant, which rather indicates that during the war the second-class certificate of education is not necessary? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to write to me about this.

Mr. Law: Certainly, Sir.

OFFICERS' PAY.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, under ACI 59/1940, which governs the rates of pay of retired officers and Royal Army Reserve of Officers, and ACI 76/ 1940, which governs the scales of pay of

the Supplementary Reserve, Territorial Army and Territorial Army Reserve of Officers, there is a considerable discrepancy between the pay drawn by captains holding these different forms of commissions; and whether he will take steps to remedy this anomaly?

Mr. Law: Apart from increments in respect of length of service, differences in the rates of pay drawn by captains arise mainly from the fact that, when the pay scales for the Army were revised in 1925 and 1938, officers already serving were given the option of retaining the old rates, where these were considered to be more favourable. Retired officers and officers of the Regular Army Reserve of Officers were naturally given the same conditions as Regular officers, and officers of the Territorial Army Reserve of Officers the same conditions as officers on the active list of the Territorial Army. My hon. Friend will appreciate that in the circumstances it would not be possible to introduce a standard rate of pay for captains without depriving officers commissioned before 1938 of the rights guaranteed to them under earlier pay scales.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that quite often Territorial officers with a certain length of service are drawing considerably more than officers of equivalent rank who are holding war emergency commissions? Does he think that is equitable?

Mr. Law: I have given a somewhat detailed Reply to this Question and tried to explain how the discrepancy arises. If the hon. Member would study the Reply and communicate with me afterwards, it might save time.

PETROL (ECONOMY).

Mr. Hammersley: asked the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that, due to the rigidity of War Office orders, there is frequently a great and avoidable waste of transport and petrol, in some cases lorries having to travel 60 miles empty to do a journey of six miles loaded; and will he take steps to amend the instructions to enable the most economical methods of transport available to be utilised?

Mr. Law: I do not consider that the existing instructions with regard to the provision of transport for the Home


Guard, to which I understand my hon. Friend refers, are unduly rigid. In order to secure economical co-ordination of transport requirements, the provision of vehicles is normally carried out through the officer in charge of transport in the district concerned or the Territorial Army Association, but Home Guard commanders may also be authorised to hire locally, where this course is cheaper and more convenient. These instructions were carefully framed to meet the needs of Home Guard units with due regard both to economy and to administrative convenience, and I do not think that there should be any real difficulty, if they are properly carried out. I have, however, called for a report on the cases which my hon. Friend has been good enough to bring to my notice, and I will communicate with him as soon as possible.

Mr. A. Edwards: Is the Minister aware that I submitted a case to him several weeks ago, where a motor lorry ran out of petrol within three miles of the official military petrol pump, and the driver had to wait according to his instructions until a lorry brought petrol from a distance of 40 miles, which meant a journey of 80 miles in all?

Mr. Law: I have seen references to cases of that kind, and my right hon. and gallant Friend is very conscious of the necessity to economise petrol. However, I think the House ought to remember a recommendation of the Select Committee to the effect that it is undesirable to set up very expensive organisations solely with the idea of saving expenses. It would be possible to create an organisation to provide that this sort of thing should never conceivably happen, but it would be expensive and involve the Army in an extensive amount of paper work and administration. I think we had better leave this matter to the common sense of those responsible, and I do not think the general results are as bad as some seem to think.

Mr. Edwards: Will the Minister withdraw his reference to the recommendation made by the Select Commitee, because the Select Committee never made any such recommendation?

Mr. Law: I think, if the hon. Member studies the Fourth Report, he will see that I was right.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Will the Minister reward economy in the use of petrol?

Mr. Levy: Does the Minister really suggest that it would require a large organisation to deal with a simple problem of this kind?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give present conditions in Stalag XXID and Stalag XXA, stating whether conditions in each one of the camps have improved and from which of them 150 officers were removed?

Mr. Law: My latest information indicates that conditions in both these camps have improved. As regards Stalag XXID, hot showers have now been provided, and the overcrowding has been relieved by the transfer of 150 officers to Stalag XXA, where new rooms have been opened to receive them. At the latter camp the quarters have also been made more comfortable and hygienic, and better facilities for exercise have been provided. A further report from the Protecting Power is awaited.

Sir A. Knox: As the reports about these two camps are very conflicting, will my hon. Friend state whether either of them is situated in an underground fort where there is only artificial light?

Mr. Law: That was the case at the beginning when the officers were first moved to that camp, because, as I have already explained, the German Government were under a misapprehension that the camp in Canada was contrary to the international Convention. It was pointed out to the German Government that that was a misapprehension, and since then there has been improvement in the way of lighting and ventilation.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he will take early steps to put an end to the discrimination still made by the War Office between officers compelled to surrender to the enemy, and other ranks similarly placed by circumstances beyond their control, by which officers are regarded as not guilty of cowardice and their pay continued, while other


ranks are regarded as guilty until proved innocent by inquiry; and whether he will make a statement?

(2) Whether he will consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to allowing the pay of other ranks prisoners of war to be credited to them as national savings at the usual interest rates?

Mr. Leslie: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider abolishing the discrimination between officers and men prisoners of war whereby the officers are credited with their pay while other ranks have it stopped until it has been proved that their capture was not due to their own fault or misconduct?

Captain Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the effect of Section 138 of the Army Act, which operates as a stoppage of pay of any non-commissioned officer or soldier whilst a prisoner of war, pending a finding of a court; and whether he will consider an immediate amendment which will regularise the situation so as to make alike the position of all ranks whilst prisoners, in the issue, credit and disposition of pay without discrimination?

Mr. Law: There is no intention of discriminating in favour of the officer. Any difference in treatment of officers and other ranks is more apparent than real, and whatever historical reason there may have been for it is now based solely upon the different methods of issuing pay. Officers' pay is paid into their banking accounts, to be dealt with by the bank at the order of the officer. The pay of other ranks is credited to their account with the regimental paymaster, to be dealt with at the order of the soldier, except that family or dependants' allowance with the appropriate qualifying allotment and any voluntary allotment in issue is not credited but is paid direct to the beneficiary. If the officer, who is a prisoner of war, gives specific instructions to his bankers as to the disposal of the amounts standing to his credit, his bankers will honour these instructions. Similarly, if a soldier prisoner of war instructs the regimental paymaster to dispose of a portion of his pay as an allotment to his family or dependant within the limit provided for

other soldiers, or to invest a portion of his daily rate of pay in the Army Savings Scheme, or to deal with the balance standing at the time to the credit of his account by way of remittances, his instructions will be honoured. In neither case is the bank or regimental paymaster entitled to act without definite instructions from the officer or soldier concerned.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the Minister aware that a Noble Lord made a speech in another place the other day in which he alleged—

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid we cannot refer to speeches which are made in another place.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the Minister aware that the discrimination referred to is still on the Statute Book and will he take steps to remove it?

Captain Lyons: Do I gather from my hon. Friend that he refers only to a proportion which may be allotted by a soldier? Is not the effect of the Army Act, to which I have drawn attention, compulsorily to stop a man's pay, subject to the allotment only about which my hon. Friend speaks? Does not that in itself bring about the unfair discrimination which some of us want to stop?

Mr. Law: No, Sir, there is no unfair discrimination. I have said that a proportion of a man's pay may go in allotment to his family, some may go to some other beneficiary, and, on his specific instructions, a proportion may go to the Army Savings Scheme. Another reason why we allow only a proportion, is that negotiations are in progress at the moment with the German authorities to ensure that prisoners of war may receive pay. The reason why we cannot put the whole of his pay in Army Savings is because a man may want it for other purposes.

Captain Lyons: Do we take it from that, that except for such amounts as he may allot for a dependant, the whole of the balance is at his disposal for the direction he may order to Army Savings?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir, the whole of the amount is at his disposal on his specific instructions. He may dispose of it by way of Army Savings, as by voluntary allotment, or, if negotiations are successful, by receipt of pay while he is a prisoner of war.

Captain Lyons: In view of Section 138 of the Army Act, will the Minister, for the benefit of those who are interested, issue some memorandum whereby the matter can be clarified?

Mr. MacMillan: Will the Minister reply to the request for the removal of this piece of snobbery in this legislation?

Mr. Shinwell: Is there really any distinction between the treatment meted out to officers and men, and if there are such distinctions, why cannot they be dealt with?

Mr. Law: I think that I stated categorically that there was no real distinction in the treatment for officers and men. I cannot speak specifically as to what happened in the Boer War, but in the last war there was no distinction, and in this war there is no distinction. I should not like my hon. Friend to misunderstand me. Both officers and men may have an inquiry into their conduct on the field, and that applies equally to officers and men.

Mr. MacMillan: Will the Minister take steps to remove this legislation, which is 100 years out of date?

Oral Answers to Questions — STEAMSHIP "ETTRICK" (TREATMENT OF INTERNEES).

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now able to indicate what action has been taken by the authorities against those who, on or about 15th July, 1940, appropriated, at Quebec, the personal belongings of internees sent to Canada aboard steamship "Ettrick"?

Mr. Law: I understand that a court of inquiry was convened by the Canadian military authorities to investigate the disappearance of belongings of internees sent to Canada in the "Ettrick" last July. This inquiry took place six days after disembarkation and two further courts of inquiry were held at the end of July and in October. As a result a small proportion of the property was recovered and returned, and orders were issued for the trial by court-martial of some Canadian soldiers. Further action has, I understand, been taken by the Canadian authorities and I am seeking further information on this point from them.

Mr. Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman expedite this inquiry, as it is nearly a year since these thefts took place, and many of these people lost a great deal— their notecases, watches, money, and so on?

Mr. Law: I am sure the hon. Member will realise that this matter is in the control of the Canadian Government, and I am sure we can rely on them to see that justice is done.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

LICENSED TRADE.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the resolution sent to him by the Independent Order of Rechabites, West Lothian District, calling for earlier closing of licensed premises, introduction of a no-treating order and suspension of bona fide privileges on Sundays; and whether he proposes to take action along these lines?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I have noted the terms of the resolution referred to, but as to earlier closing I have no powers to alter the decisions of the licensing courts. As to no-treating, I am satisfied that the enforcement of such an order, even if it were warranted by the facts, would be exceedingly difficult, and that the results would not justify the irritation which any attempted enforcement would cause. As to the third point in the Question a careful watch is being kept on the situation.

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we look upon him as one who is willing to tackle difficult things? Has he seen a declaration by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and will he give due weight to it?

Mr. Johnston: I have seen many declarations on these matters, and I give weight to them all.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the Minister aware of the difference between town and town in regard to licensing hours? Will he not call a conference of interested parties with a view to passing legislation to make this question somewhat more uniform and less ridiculous?

Mr. Johnston: If I saw the slightest chance of getting any resolution of that kind through by agreement, I would most readily do it.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not possible for Rechabites to keep out of public houses without being kept out?

DEER (DAMAGE TO CROPS.)

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether farmers or crofters, suffering loss owing to crops being destroyed by deer, will be compensated by landlords who fail to kill off the deer or take other steps to protect the crops?

Mr. Johnston: This question is at present before the Scottish Land Court, and it would not be proper for me to make any comment on a matter which is still sub judice. My hon. Friend is aware, however, that occupiers of agricultural holdings in Scotland are empowered to take and kill deer found on any arable, garden, or grass-land forming part of the holding and that agricultural executive committees may authorise the killing of deer upon any land for the purpose of preventing damage to crops.

Mr. Mathers: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this Question refers to people who are not in a position to take these steps for themselves?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir, but I answered that specific Question in the first part of my answer, where I stated that an action on this issue was still sub judice.

BOMBED-OUT FAMILIES, GLASGOW (RE-HOUSING).

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any information with regard to the number of tenants of corporation, or other houses in Glasgow, who have voluntarily evacuated to reception areas, thus occupying houses which might otherwise be available for homeless people; whether in such circum stances the local authority proposes to requisition the houses concerned for re housing bombed-out families; and whether he has made any representations to the local authority on this subject?

Mr. Johnston: I am in communication with the Corporation on this matter and perhaps the hon. and gallant Member would repeat his Question after the Whitsuntide Recess.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Will the Minister also approach the county authorities for Renfrewshire, and find out how many large houses are vacant in East Renfrewshire which are available for those who have been bombed-out in Glasgow?

Mr. Johnston: I am quite willing to do that.

POLICE VISITS AND ARRESTS.

Mr. Maxton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many homes of persons associated with Scottish Home Rule associations have been visited by the police; how many persons were taken to police stations and interrogated; and what were the reasons for these proceedings?

Mr. Johnston: I assume that the Question refers to the execution on 3rd May of search warrants obtained by the criminal authorities under Defence Regulation 88A. The homes of 17 persons, some of whom are known to have had association with Scottish Nationalist organisations of one kind or another, were visited by the police. Eleven persons were asked to accompany the police to police stations and agreed to do so. As regards the reasons for this action, which was not taken because of any connection or sympathy with Scottish Home Rule, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate on 13th May.

Mr. Maxton: I read the Lord Advocate's Answer with very great care, and he did not give any reason at all for the arrest of these men. Does the right hon. Gentleman tell me now that there were other reasons for visiting these men's homes than their connection with the Scottish Home Rule Association?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, I did say so. I hope the hon. Member will assist in the matter. It would be most improper to have any political interference with legal processes.

Mr. Buchanan: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what movement these men were connected with which led to this being done?

Mr. Johnston: The point is that already actions have been taken and convictions have been secured in two cases under the Firearms Act, and another case is pending.

Mr. Maxton: May I ask you, Sir, in response to the right hon. Gentleman's appeal to me, whether I am doing something improper when I raise in this House the question of wholesale raids on private citizens? Am I to be accused of interfering with judicial processes? Is it outside my range as a Member of this House to raise this matter?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear anything improper.

Mr. Maxton: Then it is my stupidity again.

Mr. Leach: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his carefulness in this matter is most reassuring?

Mr. Maxton: asked the Lord Advocate what charge was preferred against the Scottish Nationalist, who was charged under the Firearms Act; whether he has been tried; and, if so, what was the sentence imposed?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): The charge was a contravention of the Firearms Act, 1937, Section 1. The accused pled guilty on 14th instant and was fined £20 with the alternative of three months' imprisonment, the firearms and ammunition being forfeited. Fourteen days were allowed in which to pay the fine.

Mr. Maxton: Could the hon. and learned Gentleman give some idea of the nature of the charge under Section 1 of the Act? His predecessor led me to believe that this man was preparing an armed rebellion against England. Was that the charge that was let off with a fine?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The charge related to the possession of two Service rifles, five revolvers and 326 rounds of ammunition without certificates. There were also found on this man's premises two bayonets, nine dummy rifles, bandoliers, cartridge cases, holsters and other equipment, which were not the subject of the charge.

Mr. Maxton: I am not asking what was found. This man has taken too seriously the propaganda of the Government that it is right to fight for national independence by force of arms. He thought that what was right for Czechoslovakia was

right for Scotland. Was the charge against this man one of having firearms without having a licence?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: That is so.

Mr. Maxton: asked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that Mr. Arthur Donaldson, who was arrested on 3rd May under 18B of the Defence Regulations for his activities on behalf of Scottish national independence, was arrested by a combined force of policemen and soldiers; what was the reason for it; and whether he proposes to make a practice of using armed forces to support the police in civil cases?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No, Sir. The apprehension was effected in the normal manner by the police. Donaldson was not detained for activities on behalf of Scottish national independence but because he was believed to have been recently concerned in the preparation or instigation of acts prejudicial to the public safety and the defence of the realm.

Mr. Maxton: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman say that the military were not present?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The military were not present.

Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make further inquiries, because I have it on the very best authority that there were six policemen and four soldiers at the arrest of this one man, and this is the first time that the Government have been able to concentrate numerical superiority of force?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I should like to make it plain that, apart from serious rioting or grave public calamity, the military are not and cannot be employed to support the civil power. My information is that they were not so employed. If the hon. Member will give me his information, I will have it looked into.

Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make further inquiries?

Mr. Speaker: The Solicitor-General for Scotland has promised to do so if the hon. Member gives him his information.

Mr. Maxton: No, he should do it without my information.

COAL INDUSTRY (SHOT-FIRING).

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is in a position to make a statement on the report of the mineworkers' Federation with regard to the investigation into the practicability of the Voortmann plug for use in shot-firing?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): This report indicates circumstances in which the use of this stemming plug for cushion-blasting seems to have been of advantage. There are, however, other effective methods of stemming shots, and methods of getting down coal without the use of explosives at all. The relative advantages of all these different methods vary with circumstances and are best determined by working experience. This is a free field subject to compliance with the essential conditions of safety.

Mr. Smith: In view of the fact that the report shows that this plug is not only used for safety purposes but enables more round coal to be brought down with less slack, will he give the matter further consideration?

Mr. Grenfell: We afford a free field for all these various substitutes for explosives. This is an ordinary explosive used in a special way, and the people who are present at the experiment will draw their own conclusions.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

NIGHT BAKING.

Mr. Banfield: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the heavy death-roll of operative bakers employed on night-work, he will reconsider the suggestions made to him which would have the effect of bread being made in the daytime, without any interference with supply?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): The suggestions made by my hon. Friend are, I am afraid, impracticable in existing conditions. If the House will permit me, however, I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my great admiration for the way in which operatives engaged in night baking have stood to their task of maintaining the nation's bread supply during recent months.

Mr. Banfield: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman call the attention of his Noble Friend to the tragedy in which 32 men were killed in one bakery? If night baking is unnecessary, why should lives be risked in this way?

Major Lloyd George: I am aware of the occurrence to which the hon. Member has referred, but I am informed, after most careful inquiry, that it would not be practicable to supply the bread necessary without night baking, especially as the consumption of bread his increased by 20 per cent. in the last few months.

Mr. Banfield: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take advantage of my expert advice on the question?

Viscountess Astor: As blitzes come mostly at night-time, could not a further effort be made to bake in the day?

EGG PRICES ORDER, GLASGOW.

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been drawn to the continued abuse of the Egg Prices Order by wholesale egg distributors in Glasgow; and will he give protection to retailers prepared to give evidence of the said abuses?

Major Lloyd George: As stated in the Reply to my hon. Friend on 9th April last, I have no information regarding the abuse of the Egg Prices Order by wholesale egg distributors in Glasgow. If I am furnished with particulars of alleged abuses, I will certainly do my best to ensure that the interests of my informants are not prejudiced in any way.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that the whole question of the distribution of eggs is a scandal, and will he not take steps to ensure a more equitable distribution?

Major Lloyd George: Steps are being taken.

ORANGES (ALLOCATION TO TRADERS).

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food on whose authority Messrs. Marks and Spencer received 101 cases of oranges from a recent shipment delivered at a certain port; and will he take steps to see that only firms whose main business includes the sale of oranges receive allocations in future?

Major Lloyd George: The allocation to which my hon. Friend refers was made on the authority of the Ministry of Food. The principle upon which oranges are supplied for the branches of multiple stores and co-operative societies is that those shops which were regularly selling oranges in 1939 are entitled to receive supplies in proportion to their past trading. If the suggestion in the latter part of the Question is inconsistent with that principle, my Noble Friend could not accept it.

Mr. McKinlay: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to ensure that the small traders who depend on selling fruit for their livelihood will receive some consideration in the allocation, and that multiple firms will not get such large supplies?

Major Lloyd George: The allocations to the stores I have mentioned are based on their pre-war trading and in the proportion of that fruit to the trade.

Mr. Levy: In view of the fact that small greengrocers do not keep the statistics to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, how is it possible to make the allocation?

Major Lloyd George: Without going into details I can say that, on the whole, the last supply of oranges was distributed very satisfactorily throughout the country.

Mrs. Hardie: When foods are scarce will the Minister see that they are not given to drapery stores which are extending their food departments, but are allocated to shops dealing solely in foodstuffs?

Major Lloyd George: I will naturally look into the question of oranges being supplied to drapers, but I have not come across that. With regard to the multiple stores, many have important branches which include greengrocery departments, and they are entitled to have their proportion as much as anyone else.

RUDOLF HESS.

Major Vyvyan Adams: asked the Minister of Information, now that it is clear that the Duke of Hamilton never had any written communication from the prisoner Hess, how it came about that a statement, containing this erroneous allegation, was broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Harold Nicolson): The statement broadcast by the B.B.C. was based on information supplied by the Ministry of Information to the B.B.C. and the Press which has since been found to be erroneous. The true facts are those stated in the Reply given on 22nd May by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air to the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew (Major Lloyd).

Major Adams: Why could not this extremely damaging statement have been verified?

Mr. Nicolson: It was verified and then found to be incorrect.

Major Adams: Was it sent out without an attempt to find out what the real position was?

Mr. Nicolson: My right hon. Friend much regrets that more careful verification was not made.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that a Member of this House has made a statement that he was in the company of the Duke of Hamilton when the Duke met Hess, and that Hess was attracted by the Duke and that the Duke was attracted by Hess?

Major Adams: Does my hon. Friend realise the seriousness of this kind of allegation which might be broadcast about anybody, humble or important? Does he not think that it is extremely dangerous to a man's personal characer that these statements should be made without verification?

Mr. Nicolson: There is no question of any imputation on the Duke of Hamilton's personal conduct. He has acted with the utmost circumspection and carefulness. For any statement for which my Ministry is responsible which may have led to any doubts about his integrity we must apologise, and we do so now.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. A statement has been made in the Press by a Member of this House in which he said that another Member of the House informed him and other Members at Westminster that he was with the Duke of Hamilton when the Duke met Hess at the Olympic Games. Is it not necessary that some inquiries should be made into that?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air made a definite statement the other day on this matter, and that really finishes it.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Prime Minister why Rudolf Hess is being treated as a prisoner of war in view of the fact that he has no rank or status in the German army?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): The answer is because, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, this is the most convenient and appropriate classification for the man in question at the present time.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of all the circumstances surrounding this case, would it not be desirable to put this man on trial as an alien entering this country without a passport or as a German spy in a military uniform, or are the Government afraid to do that?

The Prime Minister: I think that we must be the judges of what is the best method to adopt. I think that the House, better than the hon. Gentleman, can judge whether we are afraid or not.

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS (ADVERTISEMENT SPACE).

Captain Lyons: asked the Minister of Information whether his attention has been called to the blank pages on either side of the "Battle of Britain"; whether any utilisation thereof for advertising war savings or any other war effort was considered, and, if not, why not; and whether, in any further publication of this nature where a large circulation is expected, some steps will be taken to utilise to advantage all space therein?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I have been asked to reply. The Stationery Office did, in fact, consider whether these pages could be used for some form of Government publicity, but it was felt that in this particular case it was better not to associate the story with any form of advertising. It is the normal practice of the Stationery Office to use blank space of this kind as suggested in appropriate cases where possible.

Captain Lyons: Can it be suggested that seeking aid for war savings in support of the "Battle of Britain" would have

interfered with this booklet, which had such a tremendous circulation?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir, I made no such suggestion. I merely explained what happened.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

FIRE SERVICE.

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give an assurance that in the re organisation of the fire brigades there will be consultation with the auxiliary fire ser vices as well as the regular fire brigades.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): Yes, Sir.

AIR-RAIDS (REGIONAL AND LOCAL ACTION).

Mr. Brooke: asked the Home Secretary whether he can make any statement about the steps taken by the South-West Regional Commissioner, to facilitate action on a regional basis after air-raids, by arranging for joint committees, co-ordinating a number of local government areas; whether similar joint committees have yet been established in other regions; or, if not, whether he has received assurance from each of the other regional com missioners that existing local government machinery is adequate to deal with all problems of homelessness, billeting, feeding, etc., which may be expected to arise in the districts surrounding any town liable to heavy air attack.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): My right hon. Friend proposes to make a full statement on regional and local planning for after-raid problems in the course of an early debate on Civil Defence.

Captain Lyons: Will the statement include machinery whereby Members who represent areas that have been attacked may be informed of that fact at the earliest possible moment?

Miss Wilkinson: The Debate will take in all aspects of the matter.

REQUISITIONED PREMISES.

Sir Annesley Somerville: asked the Prime Minister, whether, in view of the


many cases of inconsiderate and arbitrary treatment of requisitioned property by minor officials, he will take steps to provide that the livelihood, housing and compensation of owners and occupiers are treated with care and consideration?

The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend has any specific cases in mind, perhaps he will bring them to the notice of the appropriate Department.

Mr. Maxton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when approached the appropriate Department say that they are bound by Statute and that it will require legislative change to improve the position?

The Prime Minister: There is no Statute which prescribes inconsiderate treatment of anyone, but I shall be ready to be informed of any cases of this kind which may be in the knowledge of hon. Gentlemen.

Sir H. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the complaint is widespread, that many people are having their property taken, that they have to pay rent for it and rent for other property, and that they are getting no compensation?

The Prime Minister: My attention has been drawn to this question from various quarters, and I shall be glad to receive information upon it, provided that the matter cannot be satisfactorily adjusted with the Departments concerned.

Mr. Levy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that where tenants are deprived of occupation they are still liable to the landlord for the rent? Does that seem equitable, and ought not the liability for rent to be postponed?

The Prime Minister: That is a larger question, and it will certainly receive attention.

Sir William Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether his attention has been called to the fact that various Government departments, the London County Council and other public bodies are in the habit of requisitioning premises and paying a rent in respect of such premises arbitrarily fixed by themselves which is often less than the rent reserved under the lease or agreement under which the said premises are held; and whether, in view of the serious hard-

ship thus occasioned to private individuals, immediate steps will be taken to enable this injustice to be removed?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): Departments have no power arbitrarily to fix a compensation rent. The Compensation (Defence) Act provides that the rent payable for requisitioned premises shall be a sum equal to the rent which might reasonably be expected to be payable by a tenant in occupation of the premises, during the period for which possession of the premises is retained, under a lease granted immediately before that period. This rent may be greater or less than the rent payable under a former lease. In the latter event the compensation paid should reflect the cost of similar accommodation in the same neighbourhood and there is, I think my hon. Friend will agree, no reason why the Crown should pay more. Any claimant who is dissatisfied has the right of appeal to the Tribunal set up by the Act.

Sir W. Davison: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that one of my constituents, who was the proprietress of a prosperous private hotel, held on a 21 years' lease at a rental of £675 a year, has recently had it commandeered, and that she is receiving only £500 a year? She has therefore not only lost her livelihood but has to pay £175 a year without getting anything in return.

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me have the case, and I shall be glad to consider it.

Sir W. Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is quite a number of these cases which want looking into, and that there is great lack of sympathetic treatment in a great many cases?

Sir K. Wood: I must say that I am not altogether satisfied with the way in which this Act has been administered. The Lord Privy Seal is also interested in this matter, and if any cases are sent, I will see that they are carefully examined with a view to seeing what can be done.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS (MINISTERIAL. RESPONSIBILITY).

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, to prevent misunderstandings, steps will be taken to


ensure that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs shall be the sole Minister responsible in this House for all matters relating to foreign affairs in accordance with constitutional practice?

The Prime Minister: It is my intention that my right hon. Friend should continue to discharge the responsibility described.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this important constitutional practice has not been strictly observed in recent months and has caused serious misgivings and misunderstandings in several quarters?

The Prime Minister: If that is so, it has not been intentional, but sometimes in the conversational matter in which we discharge our affairs in this House supplementary questions may have led to an answer trespassing beyond the bounds that would be normal, and no harm has arisen.

ACTS OF PARLIAMENT (BASIC ENGLISH).

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to have all Acts of Parliament written in basic English?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Edwards: Does not the Prime Minister think that it would be a great economy of the time of the House if, after the official draftsmen had done their best —or worst—with these Bills, they were translated into more understandable English; and will he contemplate the calamity that might befall us if these draftsmen some day took his own speeches and translated them into official language.

The Prime Minister: Well, there is a great deal of official jargon, but it has not been arrived at with a view to causing inconvenience, but because those who are entrusted with expressing the decisions of the House in statutory form have found that to be the most convenient and precise method. With regard to the idea that we should try to describe everything in basic English, that is very sensible, and I may draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the word "basic" and its neighbour the word "basal" are both under very great suspicion at present in

the way in which they are used. I see that Mr. Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage, which everyone should study, says:
These un-English looking adjectives, neither of which existed before the 19th century, were manufactured merely as adjuncts to certain technical uses of the noun 'base' in botany, chemistry and architecture where the word 'fundamental' would have been misleading.

Mr. Edwards: While I thank the Prime Minister for taking so much trouble over this matter, does he not think that, in spite of all that he has said, some improvement could be made?

Commander Locker-Lampson: Would the hon. Member himself start by making his speeches in basic English?

POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether, in planning for post-war reconstruction, he will consider bringing together into one national superannuation scheme all the private, municipal and national superannuation and pension schemes to remove the overlapping, anomalies and multiplication of existing schemes and staffs?

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): My hon. Friend's suggestion is being borne in mind. He will be aware of the statement made last Thursday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Ellis Smith) that a thorough overhaul of the existing schemes of social insurance, including pensions insurance, is now being undertaken.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the Minister keep in mind that practically the whole population now come under some pension scheme or other, and that a great deal of overlapping must necessarily take place, both in accounting and otherwise; and will he keep in mind the possibility of combining all these into one big superannuation scheme?

Mr. Greenwood: I should not like to pledge myself to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, but the need for this survey arises largely out of the considerations which my hon. Friend has put to me.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether he will give particulars of the organisation of his Department; the numbers employed; the estimated total cost; and what progress has been made in the study of post-war world organisation?

Mr. Greenwood: The work of investigating problems of reconstruction is under the general direction of a Ministerial Committee of the War Cabinet, of which I am Chairman. As I stated in reply to a Question on 30th of January last by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Cary), the major part of the work of investigation falls upon the Departments concerned and upon various organisations with which we are in consultation. It would be impracticable to estimate the cost of this work as in very many cases it forms only part of the duties performed by the staff engaged upon it. For the secretarial work in connection with the Ministerial Committee and for the general supervision of the work I have the immediate assistance of a staff of seven persons whose total remuneration amounts to £5,264 a year. As regards the last part of the Question, certain aspects of reconstruction are already the subject of consultation with Dominion Governments and other aspects will be discussed at the appropriate time; and post-war problems in the Colonies are under examination. I am in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as regards the international aspect of post-war problems which are under consideration.

Mr. Mander: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in addition to the Dominion Governments with whom consultations are taking place, the Allied Governments are also being consulted?

Mr. Greenwood: Indeed, yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

GOVERNMENT BORROWING.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that he will restrict Government borrowing by way of Treasury deposit receipts to the affiliated English banks; and whether he can state the names of the banks outside the orbit of the English banks who have in the

past two months been allowed to participate in these operations?

Sir K. Wood: In the reply which I gave on 4th July, 1940, to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir G. Broadbridge), 1 stated that these deposits would be taken from the clearing banks and the Scottish banks, and the scheme has also been made available to other banks operating in the sterling area which have accumulated sterling balances here. It would not be advisable to lay down binding rules for the future. It is not the practice to publish the names of subscribers to Government loans of any description.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend not think it desirable that there should be some statement of Government policy regarding the whole question of the issue of Treasury deposit receipts, in view of the fact that taxpayers all over the country have been called upon to pay for this rather expensive form of borrowing?

Sir K. Wood: I cannot agree with the latter part of the supplementary Question, but I think a statement has been made, and if on the Finance Bill anyone desires to put a question on the subject no doubt a further statement could be made.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is it not in the national interest that the Treasury should borrow for its requirements from as broad a field as possible?

Sir K. Wood: Certainly, and of course there is nothing objectionable in taking deposits from the central banks—rather the contrary.

DEATHS BY ENEMY ACTION (LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION)

Mr. Culverwell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in cases where several members of a family are simultaneously killed by enemy action, the cost of taking out letters of administration is incurred several times in respect of the same estate; and will he take steps to save beneficiaries this unnecessary expense?

Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made on 13th May in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) and to the terms of Clause 37 of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Culverwell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in cases of whole families killed by enemy action. Estate Duty is charged on the same estate, in some cases, three or four times; and will he take steps to remedy this injustice?

Sir K. Wood: Each death must be treated separately for the purpose of the administration of the estates in question in order to prevent confusion arising in the devolution of property. Where each of the persons in question dies intestate the cost of obtaining such letters of administration as may be necessary may be very small but would no doubt vary according to the circumstances of each case. So far as the cost consists of Estate Duty, I would refer my hon. Friend to the proposals for a further remission contained in the Finance Bill. A reduction of court fees would follow automatically.

AUSTRALIAN STOCKS (CONVERSION).

Sir George Broadbridge: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now prepared to give facilities for the conversion of stocks in respect of which the Commonwealth of Australia, and the various State Governments, are in a position to exercise an option of repayment?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. I am glad to be able to announce that an offer of conversion in respect of those stocks carrying a higher rate of interest than 4 per cent. will be made at an early date. In order to facilitate this operation without interference with the Government's borrowing operations, I have agreed to advance from the Vote of Credit to the Commonwealth of Australia such sum as may be necessary to repay any unconverted stock.

WAR WEAPONS WEEKS.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of asking organisers of War Weapons Weeks not to accept loans from banks, or from individuals who have had the amount they invest advanced by their bank, unless such loans are made free of interest?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. Borrowing from the banks by their customers for the purpose of subscribing to War Loans would be contrary to the Government's policy, and I do not think that any appreciable amount for subscriptions is so financed.

Mr. Hall: Surely the Chancellor realises that these War Weapons Weeks were instituted in order to help ordinary people to save, and not to enable the banks to get a higher rate of interest, and to get the credit of making contributions towards these weeks or inducing their customers to do so? Does the Chancellor approve of this procedure?

Sir K. Wood: This matter was discussed at considerable length on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill the other day, and a considered statement was made, and I should like to say how grateful I am for all those who have organised these War Weapons Weeks.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that during the London War Weapons Week a police loud-speaker van, driven by a uniformed policeman, stopped outside several well-known popular stores, when the speaker in the van asked shoppers not to buy in these stores, which he mentioned by name, and made personal remarks which offended many people; and will he arrange that this type of propaganda is not used by the Government again?

Sir K. Wood: I regret that in this instance a voluntary helper departed widely from the guidance given to him. Propaganda of this type is, of course, not approved by the Government or the National Savings Movement, and the necessary steps were taken to avoid a repetition of the incident.

CIVIL SERVANTS (LEAVE).

Mr. Culverwell: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the extra strain and the arduous and dangerous duties such as fire-watching, to which civil servants are subjected in dangerous areas, he will consider giving them a longer holiday than the standard seven days?

Captain Crookshank: The decision of His Majesty's Government with regard to the leave of civil servants provides that a second week's leave may be granted where it is necessary in the interests of health and efficiency. The case of officers who are suffering from strain as a result of their fire-fighting services in dangerous areas will be sympathetically considered.

GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of Stale for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the advisability of breaking off all relations with the Vichy Government, now disclosed as part of the Axis machine, and granting recognition in the fullest appropriate form to the associations of free Frenchmen under General de Gaulle?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): There are no British representatives of any kind in France, nor any French diplomatic representatives in this country. Certain French consuls are, however, as a matter of convenience, allowed to continue to function here, but they have no cypher or bag facilities and their duties are confined to routine consular matters. His Majesty's Government have recognised General de Gaulle as the leader of all Free Frenchmen, wherever they may be, who rally to him in support of the Allied cause.

Mr. Mander: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving much further recognition to General de Gaulle's movement as representing all that is best in France?

Mr. Butler: I do not think I can add to the comprehensive statement made by my right lion. Friend some days ago.

PRISONERS OF WAR (EXCHANGE).

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any satisfactory arrangement has yet been come to for the exchange with Germany of prisoners of war unfit for further military service?

Mr. Butler: No reply on this subject has yet been received from the German Government to the last proposal made by His Majesty's Government. In the meanwhile, the question of making separate arrangements for the transfer to more suitable places of prisoners of war who are suffering from tuberculosis is being examined, in consultation with other Governments. I am not, however, yet in a position to make a further statement, either in regard to this matter or in regard to the general question of exchange.

Sir A. Knox: Is it possible to press the German Government through the Protecting Power?

Captain McEwen: Does my right hon. Friend mean suitable places inside Germany?

Mr. Butler: This matter is under consideration.

UNOCCUPIED FRANCE (UNITED STATES FOODSTUFFS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether it is proposed to continue to grant permission for foodstuffs from the United States of America to pass through the blockade to Vichy France?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): No navicerts for further shipments of foodstuffs to France are at present under consideration.

WAR SITUATION.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the course of the war?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The battle in Crete has now lasted for a week. During the whole of this time our troops have been subjected to an intense and continuous scale of air attack, to which, owing to the geographical conditions, our Air Forces have been able to make only a very limited, though very gallant, counterblast. The fighting has been most bitter and severe, and the enemy's losses up to the present have been much heavier than ours. We have not, however, been able to prevent further descents of airborne German reinforcements, and the enemy's attack and the weight of this attack has grown from day to day. The battle has swayed backwards and forwards with indescribable fury at Canea and equally fiercely, though on a smaller scale, at Retimo and Heraklion. Reinforcements of men and supplies have reached and are reaching General Freyberg's Forces, and at the moment at which I am speaking the issue of their magnificent resistance hangs in the balance.
So far, the Royal Navy have prevented any landing of a sea-borne expedition, although a few shiploads of troops in caiques may have slipped through. Very heavy losses have been inflicted by our submarines, cruisers and destroyers upon


the transports and the small Greek ships. It is not possible to state with accuracy how many thousands of enemy troops have been drowned, but the losses have been very heavy. The services rendered by the Navy in the defence of Crete have not been discharged without heavy losses to them. Our Fleet has been compelled to operate constantly without air protection within effective bombing range of the enemy airfields. Claims even more exaggerated than usual have been made by the German and Italian wireless, which it has hitherto not been thought expedient to contradict. I may state, however, that we have lost the cruisers "Gloucester" and "Fiji" and the destroyers "Juno," "Greyhound," "Kelly" and "Kashmir," by far the greater part of their crews having been saved. Two battleships and several other cruisers have been damaged, though not seriously, either by hits or near misses, but all will soon be in action again, and some are already at sea. The Mediterranean Fleet is to-day relatively stronger, compared to the Italian Navy, than it was before the Battle of Cape Matapan. There is no question whatever of our naval position in the Eastern Mediterranean having been prejudicially affected. However the decision of the battle may go, the stubborn defence of Crete, one of the important outposts of Egypt, will always rank high in the military and naval annals of the British Empire.
In Iraq, our position has been largely re-established, and the prospects have greatly improved. There have been no further adverse developments in Syria. In Abyssinia, the daily Italian surrenders continue, many thousands of prisoners and masses of equipment being taken.
While this drama has been enacted in the Eastern Mediterranean, another episode of an arresting character has been in progress in the Northern waters of the Atlantic Ocean. On Wednesday of last week, 21st May, the new German battleship, the "Bismarck," accompanied by the new eight-inch-gun cruiser "Prince Eugen," were discovered by our air reconnaisance at Bergen, and on Thursday, 22nd May, it was known that they had left. Many arrangements were made to intercept them should they attempt, as seemed probable, to break out into the Atlantic Ocean with a view to striking

at our convoys from the United States. During the night of 23rd to 24th our cruisers got into visual contact with them as they were passing through the Denmark Strait between Iceland and Greenland. At dawn on Saturday morning the "Prince of Wales" and the "Hood" intercepted the two enemy vessels. I have no detailed account of the action, because events have been moving so rapidly, but the "Hood" was struck at about 23,000 yards by a shell which penetrated into one of her magazines, and blew up, leaving only very few survivors This splendid vessel, designed 23 years ago, is a serious loss to the Royal Navy, and even more so is the loss of the men and officers who manned her.
During the whole of Saturday our ships remained in touch with the "Bismarck" and her consort. In the night aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm from the "Victorious" struck the "Bismarck" with a torpedo, and arrangements were made for effective battle at dawn yesterday morning, but as the night wore on the weather deteriorated, the visibility decreased, and the "Bismarck," by making a sharp turn, shook off the pursuit. I do not know what has happened to the "Prince Eugen," but measures are being taken in respect of her. Yesterday, shortly before midday, a Catalina aircraft—one of the considerable number of these very far-ranging scouting aeroplanes which have been sent to us by the United States—picked up the "Bismarck," and it was seen that she was apparently making for the French ports— Brest or Saint Nazaire. On this, further rapid dispositions were made by the Admiralty and by the Commander-in-Chief, and, of course, I may say that the moment the "Bismarck" was known to be at sea the whole apparatus of our ocean control came into play, very far-reaching combinations began to work, and from yesterday afternoon—I have not had time to prepare a detailed statement—Fleet Air Arm torpedo-carrying seaplanes from the "Ark Royal," made a succession of attacks upon the "Bismarck," which now appears to be alone and without her consort. About midnight we learned that the "Bismarck" had been struck by two torpedoes, one amidships and the other astern. This second torpedo apparently affected the steering of the ship, for not only was she reduced to a very slow speed, but she continued making uncontrollable


circles in the sea. While in this condition, she was attacked by one of our flotillas, and hit by two more torpedoes, which brought her virtually to a standstill, far from help and far outside the range at which the enemy bomber aircraft from the French coast could have come upon the scene. This morning, at daylight or shortly after daylight, the "Bismarck" was attacked by the British pursuing battleships. I do not know what were the results of the bombardment; it appears, however, that the "Bismarck" was not sunk by gunfire, and she will now be dispatched by torpedo. It is thought that this is now proceeding, and it is also thought that there cannot be any lengthy delay in disposing of this vessel.
Great as is our loss in the "Hood," the "Bismarck" must be regarded as the most powerful, as she is the newest battleship in the world, and this striking of her from the German Navy is a very definite simplification of the task of maintaining the effective mastery of the Northern seas and the maintenance of the Northern blockade. I daresay that in a few days it will be possible to give a much more detailed account, but the essentials are before the House and although there is shade as well as light in this picture I feel that we have every reason to be satisfied with the outcome of this fierce and memorable naval encounter.

Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can say what was the weight of the projectiles which were thrown on the "Bismark" prior to the abandonment of the gun attack for torpedo attacks?

The Prime Minister: I naturally cannot. I only heard about five minutes before I came into the Chamber the latest information to reach the Admiralty, and, as I have said, I have no doubt we shall get further information in the course of the day.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the dropping of weeping gas bombs on the "Bismarck" to see whether she could not be captured?

Sir A. Knox: In view of the effect produced on Lord Beatty's battle cruisers at the Battle of Jutland, may I ask whether, when the "Hood" was withdrawn for overhaul, she got special equipment— additional armour—to guard her magazines or not?

The Prime Minister: The "Hood" was refitted about 10 years ago, and during the war she has been several times in hand for short periods in order to have her turbine blades attended to, but no major reconstruction of the ship, which was known to be thinly armoured, was possible during the war, and none had been set on foot before the war.

Later—

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether I might venture, with great respect, to intervene for one moment. I have just received news that the "Bismarck" is sunk.

NORTHERN IRELAND (CONSCRIPTION).

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) had a Question (No. 46) on the Order Paper about the application of conscription to Northern Ireland. I said a week ago that this matter had been engaging our attention. We have made a number of inquiries in various directions, with the result that we have come to the conclusion that at the present time, although there can be no dispute about our rights or about the merits, it would be more trouble than it is worth to enforce such a policy.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: Will it not make a rather bad impression throughout the Empire that, once again, the Government have had to burke this issue, obviously because of pressure from Southern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I can put it better than I have done. After a full survey we came to the decision which I have announced.

Sir H. O'Neill: There is one point which I think, in fairness, the Prime Minister would like to make clear. Was it not the view of the Government of Northern Ireland that conscription could be and should be applied?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. That was the view of the Government of Northern Ireland, for whose loyal aid and continued and constant support of our cause, no words of praise can be too high.

Professor Savory: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is not aware that the Government of Northern Ireland were unanimous in recommending that conscription should be applied to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Speaker: That question has been answered.

PRIVILEGE (NEWSPAPER ARTICLE).

Mr. Rhys Davies: I wish to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which, I think, affects the Privileges of the House. Last Wednesday the House went into Secret Session, and in the newspaper called the "Observer," dated Sunday, 25th May, there is an article entitled "Parliament and the War Output." I venture to suggest that, although the article merely purports to give a report, in brief form, of our proceedings, to do even that may affect the Privileges of the House.

The Clerk (Sir Gilbert Campion) read the article complained of as followeth: Without divulging anything that passed behind closed doors, one can say that Members generally were well satisfied with the progress reported by Sir Andrew Duncan. He gave a clear and convincing account of his work at the Ministry of Supply, impressed even those who came to criticise and undoubtedly heightened his prestige.
Production of material of all kinds has, in fact, increased by leaps and bounds, and still is increasing. Last quarter the number of tanks and guns delivered was half as great again as in the preceding quarter. The rate of increase cannot be maintained at this level, but a steady rise in output is looked for from quarter to quarter.
In recent months the training schemes have supplied factories both old and new with the personnel needed and the number of new factories coming into production is considerable. Sometimes one hears people ask when the maximum production will be reached.
Sir Andrew Duncan does not admit a maximum. He believes there is scarcely a limit to expansion—by new factories, additional labour and by getting a little more out of the machines. Some machines are being run at 40 and even 50 per cent. above their rated capacity, but this can be done safely only under expert guidance to ensure that a machine shall not be strained to a point at which it will break down.

Mr. Speaker: This is a novel subject of complaint which does not appear to have arisen in connection with any of the

Secret Sittings held during the last war. In the absence of any guidance from precedent, I must base myself upon Rules which the House has repeatedly laid down with regard to the publication of its Debates, and which are explained in May's "Parliamentary Practice," pages 82 and 83.
Stated briefly, it is the undoubted right of the House to forbid the publication of reports of its Debates and to punish such publication as a disobedience of its Rules and a breach of its Privileges. It is true that, normally, this right is waived, but it is open to the House to insist upon it at any time, as, for instance, when its proceedings are wilfully distorted or misrepresented, or when, as in the present case, the House, by ordering the withdrawal of strangers and by express Resolution, has plainly signified its intention of treating certain proceedings as secret.
The extract from the newspaper of which complaint has been made seems designed to produce the impression that it is giving the substance of a speech delivered in the course of a Secret Sitting. And, whether or not the views and statements apparently attributed to the right hon. Gentleman were actually expressed by him on that occasion, if, in the view of the House, the newspaper purports to disclose that they were so made, that fact would, of itself, render the newspaper guilty of a contempt of this House and of a breach of its Privileges. I have no hesitation in ruling that the hon. Member has made out a prima facie case.

The Prime Minister: In view of the Ruling which you, Sir, have given, it is my duty, in accordance with precedent, to move:
That the Matter of the Complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Gallacher: May I ask a question with reference to the Committee of Privileges?

Mr. Speaker: I have already put the Question and the House has decided.

SOLICITORS BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Ordered,
That a Message be sent to the Lords, to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the Viscount Bridgeman to attend to be examined as a witness before the Sub-Committee on Army Services, appointed by the Select Committee on National Ex-penditure."—[Sir R. Glyn.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they give leave to the Viscount Bridgeman to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Sub-Committee on Army Services, appointed by the Select Committee appointed by this. House on National Expenditure, if his Lordship think fit.

Orders of the Day — LIABILITIES (WAR-TIME ADJUSTMENT) BILL. [Lords.]

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Services of liabilities adjustment officers in effecting schemes of arrangement.)

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, to leave out from "and," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
every scheme so approved shall be registered in the prescribed manner.
(10) Nothing in the Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1914, shall apply to a scheme approved under this Section.
On the Committee stage the Government were asked to reconsider the provision that schemes made by the officer were to be registered under the Deeds of Arrangement Act. I said that there might be difficulties, but that I would look into the matter. We found that the difficulties could be overcome. Therefore, I am moving this Amendment, to provide that a register shall be supplied, and that it shall not be in the form provided for in the Deeds of Arrangement Act.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3 —(Application for adjustment of debtor's affairs.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 4, line 19, after "his," to insert "accrued."
This Amendment and the series of Amendments following it, are the result of a discussion on the Committee stage over an Amendment relating to the words which define the position of those entitled to take advantage of the procedure laid down by this Bill. For instance, a man who has present and future debts, and cannot discharge both, should be able to come within the provisions. I think that these Amendments clear the matter up.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 4, line 19, leave out "and," and insert:
or will be unable, after payment of his accrued debts (if any).

In line 22, after "his," insert "accrued,"

In line 24, leave out from "would," to "recovering," in line 25, and insert "have no reasonable prospect of preserving or."

In page 5, line 25, leave out "those Acts," and insert "that Act."—[The Attorney-General.]

CLAUSE 6.—(Powers of court with respect to leases and other contracts.)

Amendment made: In page 8, line 12, after the first "1939," insert "or."—[The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 8, line 43, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the court shall not provide for the vesting of any goods under this subsection before the debtor has paid in respect of the hire-purchase price sums amounting at least to the value of the goods at the date of the liabilities adjustment order.
When the Bill was in Committee, it was suggested that we might be able to fix some money limit below which the court could not exercise its power of vesting goods on hire purchase. The suggestion was made in an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). We think that that would be an improvement; and that the court should not make an order vesting the goods on hire purchase unless the amount paid is equal to the value of the goods at the time.

Mr. Woodburn (Clackmannan and Stirling, Eastern): Does that mean when the amount paid is less than the value, the goods will be vested in the company which has sold them to the purchaser?

The Attorney-General: All we say in that case is that the court cannot make a vesting order. Of course, the company may agree that the goods should remain, and collect the balance. It would depend on the terms of the agreement.

Mr. Woodburn: In the case of a company having the right to retake the goods under the contract, will the liabilities adjustment officer have any power to safeguard the purchaser in the event of his being in serious financial difficulties which would make it impossible for him to pay the balance?

The Attorney-General: There is nothing to prevent some adjustment. All that this Amendment says is that the court cannot vest the goods by order.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Mortgagees.)

Amendment made: In page 9, line 20, at the end, insert "as may be necessary."—[The Attorney-General.]

CLAUSE 9—(Priority of Debts.)

Sir Leonard Lyle: I beg to move, in page 11, line 1, to leave out from "Section," to the end of line 16, and to insert:
and notwithstanding Subsection (1) of Section thirty-three of the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, all debts or classes of debts shall rank equally among themselves.
1 very much regret that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Major C. S. Taylor) is not here to move this Amendment. He has written to me to say that he is detained on military duties, and, therefore, it falls upon me to move the Amendment. I feel that its proposals are only fair and just. In peacetime, when any bankruptcy occurs and the estate is wound up there is a prior claim on the disposable funds for rates and taxes. This Bill presupposes the same procedure in the distribution of assets; and we object to that. I object, partly because I think we should get away from bankruptcy procedure. I think I am right in saying that when this Bill was before the House on Second Reading, and when it was in Committee, certain hon. Members were very pained because official receivers might be delegated to take the places of the liabilities adjustment officers. They asserted that that was rather suggestive of bankruptcy proceedings. In wartime, we have to adopt special treatment for hard-hit individuals. I hope that local authorities will not press for their pound of flesh and their so-called first cut off the joint. Local authorities are perfectly able to get assistance from the State, but nobody assists the hard-hit small trader. The Government, at any rate, do not assist him with any money grant. All he is given is a moratorium; and that is of very little use to him. Some small traders are being hit very hard, and they need our help far more than local authorities do. Many are fighting a very gallant fight, and are having great difficulty in keeping their heads above water. Therefore, rates should not be preferentially treated.
What about taxes? I appeal to my right hon. Friend to see whether he cannot persuade the Treasury to forgo their prior

claim on disposable assets. To the Exchequer, it must be a very small thing. I know that small things in the aggregate amount to a lot; but to the State the question is really trivial, and the money would hardly be missed. We are not asking them to give up their rights, but only to agree that their rights should rank equally with those of individuals. Nothing that they would lose would be missed, whereas anything that is done for the small trader will be of the greatest importance to his whole livelihood. I know that the reply will be that we are merely following precedent, but I would appeal to the House and to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to drop precedent. We have dropped precedent many times, thank goodness, during this war, with very valuable and beneficial effects. Why do we want to follow precedent in such a case as this? We have in many cases helped hundreds of thousands of people by dropping precedent and striking out on novel lines more fitted to the great struggle in which we are engaged. I appeal on behalf of the small trader. We have done very little for the small trader in the past, and here we have an opportunity of doing him some small service. We are not asking a favour, but merely that the small trader should be put on an equality with vast and powerful interests, and I hope we shall not let the opportunity slip past.

Mr. Silverman: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: I would like to support the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir L. Lyle) said that the Revenue would not lose very much, but I question whether it would lose anything at all. Many small traders, and large traders as well, are put into extreme difficulties and ultimate bankruptcy because of the priority claim of local authorities as far as rates are concerned, and of the Treasury as far as taxes are concerned. If the Treasury and local authorities were put into the same position as ordinary traders, many firms would not have to go into bankruptcy.

The Attorney-General: I do not think that this suggestion has been made before in the course of our discussions, and it would be a mistake to accept it. The general idea of the Bill is to apply the


principles of bankruptcy—I say that without offence—to the general principles of dealing with the man who cannot pay his debts and his creditors, making it more elastic and conciliatory, and making these very great changes, namely, protecting from realisation, the assets of a man's trade and business, his home and so on. The general idea of the Bill is that there is no bankruptcy. We have done everything to avoid bankruptcy in the principles which have been approved as right and proper. Among these principles are the priorities which only apply to one year's rates and taxes. They do not go beyond one year, but they also apply to arrears of wages, salaries of clerks and workmen, and arrears of workmen's compensation, and all this would be swept away by the Amendment. I think that that would be a mistake. It would be wrong to introduce this exception into the Bill. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment said that we ought not to be tied down by precedent, and I agree with him. The whole idea of the Bill is a complete departure from precedent in principle from beginning to end, and I think it would be wrong to interfere with it, and having done what we have to protect the business premises and the equipment and tools of a man's business, and his home, it is reasonable for the ordinary relationships under the Bankruptcy Acts to continue.

Sir L. Lyle: Would my right hon. and learned Friend deal with the point as to why the State and local authorities should come before any ordinary trader or individual?

The Attorney-General: I should have thought that one of the obvious things was that it was in the interests of obtaining money to protect our hearths and homes. The local authorities carry out services without which we could not be provided, for instance, with water to drink, and we would be unprotected from fire. In Committee there was an Amendment because it was feared that the priority did not apply in certain cases of death. Local authorities can come to an arrangement with the liabilities assessment officer, and the Inland Revenue have a similar power, and I do not think that the House need apprehend that either local authorities or the Revenue would be unreasonable in agreeing to schemes

which would enable a man to survive. They will have just the same object as other creditors to see that he is kept alive in the business sense and can start again when times are normal. I believe that there would be objection in many quarters if this limited priority did not apply in this Bill. The Bill is really meant to achieve the protection of a man's business premises, and I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will see their way not to press the Amendment, because we cannot accept it.

Mr. Silverman: Would the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman apply to the priority which is preserved in this Clause to landlords? One could follow his argument very well in connection with wages and workmen's compensation and in the case of death, but it does not give, any right under this procedure to protect the priority of the claim of the landlord over that of other claimants.

The Attorney-General: I think it does. There is priority under the Bankruptcy Acts for one year's rates.

Mr. Silverman: Is there not priority for six months' rates?

The Attorney-General: I think my hon. Friend is right, and I missed that, but the answer must be that, as far as that is concerned, it would be a pity to interfere with the rules that Parliament has approved.

Sir L. Lyle: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 13.—(Power to continue adjustment proceedings in relation to estate of deceased debtor.)

Amendment made: In page 14, line 3, leave out "of." —[The Attorney-General.]

CLAUSE 14.—(Provisions as to partnership.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 16, line 23, after "their," to insert "accrued."
This Amendment, like the other Amendments to this Clause in my name, is consequential.

Mr. Woodburn: Is this just a drafting Amendment? It is not consequential on the previous Amendment.

The Attorney-General: These Amendments are parallel to those we had to Clause 3, and, having amended Clause 3, I thought it would be fair to describe these as consequential.

Mr. Woodburn: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on finding a solution?

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 16, line 23, leave out "and," and insert:
or will be unable, after payment of their accrued debts (if any).

In line 26, after "their," insert accrued."

In line 27, leave out from "would," to "or," in line 29, and insert:
have no reasonable prospect of preserving or recovering the business of the firm,"—[The Attorney-General.]

CLAUSE 16.—(Rules.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 18, line 43, to leave out "publication," and to insert "giving."
This Amendment serves two purposes. It was suggested on the Committee stage that we should have as little publicity as possible. I quite agree that the Bill as drafted did make it mandatory that notice should be published. I think that is unnecessary in itself. One must see that notice is given to the people concerned, but it is quite unnecessary in all cases to publish it.

Mr. Garro Jones: While concurring with what the Attorney-General has said, it seems to me that some further practical difficulty may arise in giving effect to the giving of notice. Is the debtor's list of his debts to be taken, as it were, on his ipse dixit? What if creditors are omitted?

The Attorney-General: I think one must leave it to be dealt with as circumstances arise. There will be some cases where it is quite clear that the debtor will put all his cards on the table. There may be only a difficulty with the landlord, but there may be other cases of complexity where it might be necessary to put a notice in the paper.

Mr. Woodburn: I think there is a contradiction. The thing cannot be settled unless there is an assurance that everybody concerned will receive notification.

The Attorney-General: There is a provision in an earlier Clause of the Bill whereby anybody left out can come to the court and say, "The thing ought to be reconsidered, because I am concerned."

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 18.—(Effect of liabilities adjustment proceedings or scheme of arrangement on persons liable jointly or as sureties.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 20, line 8, after "lease," to insert "or."
There was some discussion in Committee on the wording of this Clause. Some wanted to leave out the Clause altogether. It deals with the question of the guarantor, and what I said in Committee was that I thought it was right that if rent under lease or interest under mortgage is reduced under the provisions of this Act, which enables that reduction to be made, the guarantor's liability should come down with it as provided by the Clause but that that should not happen in the case of other contracts. I think there was some misunderstanding at the time of the discussion in Committee as to what contracts were brought in by that wording, where it appeared in this Clause. It was only limited by the class of contract which was dealt with under Clause 6. The purpose we had in mind was primarily lease or mortgage, and I said that on the Report stage we would leave out this reference to contracts. The Amendments to this Clause which are in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland) carry out that undertaking.

Sir William Davison: I am much obliged to the Attorney-General for omitting the words "or contract." I think it will remove the possibility of misunderstanding in the case of securities obtained by local authorities for the carrying-out of contracts entered into by them. If the words "or contract" are now to be removed, should not the word "or" be inserted before the word "mortgage"?

The Attorney-General: That is in the first Amendment.

Sir W. Davison: I am much obliged.

Mr. Garro Jones: I would like to make an observation or two about this matter. I cannot see why a guarantor should, in ethics or in principle, be liable to a greater extent than the person he has guaranteed, neither can I see why a preference should be given to some sureties over other types of sureties. When a man undertakes to act as surety for another person, he makes that undertaking in the circumstances which then existed, and if those circumstances change, it seems to me that he is equally entitled with the debtor to some relief. While I am grateful to the extent to which the Attorney-General has made some concession, I do not think he has gone as far as he might have done.

Mr. Silverman: It seems to me that it is a little late to raise some controversy about this, but I was engaged elsewhere on the Committee stage, and I had not the advantage of hearing the argument which led the Attorney-General to move (his Amendment. But I suggest that it was important and that it conflicts with the whole purpose of the Bill. This making of the guarantor liable to a greater extent than the principal would have been can be justified only on the basis that if the creditor is entitled to be paid by anybody and if there is anybody who can pay him, then he can be paid. But it was not intended in this Bill to apply that principle. In the Second Reading Debate it was said that this was an attempt by the Legislature to make all parties to a transaction, adversely affected by the war, make a common adjustment and bear the burden in common. In other words, not merely the debtor must be relieved if he is in difficulty, but the creditor must contribute to the loss and must share the burden to some extent in common with the other parties to the contract. If this Amendment is accepted, however, in all cases where there is a guarantor who has the ability to pay, the whole burden of circumstances, which nobody could have foreseen and which are not within the control of any of the parties, is to be borne, not by the debtor, who ex hypotkesi cannot pay, but by the guarantor, and the creditor is not to bear any burden or to share the loss in any way, and is to be an entirely privileged person in a trans-

action which cannot be carried out, not by reason of the defect of any of the parties to it, but by reason of war circumstances which are beyond their control. I suggest that the Attorney-General has allowed himself on this occasion to be persuaded against his better judgment, and that the Bill as originally drafted was better. I think that, in yielding to whatever arguments may have been put to him, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to some extent weakened the Bill. I do not know whether there is any opportunity for reconsideration of this matter, but if there is, I urge the Government to reconsider it.

Mr. Woodburn: It seems to me that any number of guarantors take on a liability in order to help other people. For instance, in Scotland, it very often happens that when a person has to give a guarantee with regard to rent, friends help him by acting as guarantors. Personally, I have given a guarantee for people who wanted to buy a house, but in doing so I did not contemplate a war as a result of which these people would be exceptionally liable not to pay their debts. There may be circumstances in which people who had acted in a number of ways to befriend other people may find themselves almost ruined by the absence of any protection under this Bill. I am sure that is not what the Government want, and I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) that the Attorney-General has been persuaded against his better judgment to make this alteration. If the matter could be left to the discretion of the liabilities adjustment officer there might be something to be said for the Amendment, but I do not think the Bill should make it impossible for such an adjustment to be made.

The Attorney-General: I think there is a little misunderstanding concerning this matter. We discussed the matter fully in Committee, and it was pointed out that the only contract which would be brought in under the wording of this Clause was a contract which had been dealt with under Clause 6, Sub-section (4). The Bill never provided that in the case of debts the guarantor should be relieved of his liability. The only contracts which would be covered were contracts dealt with under Clause 6, Sub-section (4),


where it appears to the court that it would be in the interests of all parties under a contract (other than a lease or a hire purchase agreement), which could be disclaimed under the last foregoing section that the contract should continue in effect in a varied form rather than be disclaimed, the court may in the liabilities adjustment order vary the contract accordingly.
That is a case which will not very often arise perhaps, but instances were given of possible cases of contracts with local authorities where there is a guarantor more of performance than of a money payment; and I think that on the whole the Committee, came to the conclusion that the real purpose of this Clause was to (teal with the lease and mortgage cases, and that some misunderstandings would be removed by the omission of the word "contract," and that it was unlikely that there would be cases that would become subject to Clause 6, Sub-section (4)—which can only operate with the consent of everybody concerned—which would not: be covered quite well if the Amendment were made.

Mr. Silverman: Are we to understand that, over the whole range of debts and contracts, where it is impossible to perform them by reason of war circumstances and where there is a guarantor who can pay, the Bill leaves him still liable to pay when his principal is not liable?

The Attorney-General: No, Sir. The principal remains liable, but being insolvent he is not able to pay. This Clause deals with cases where the court reduces his liability. For instance, he may be liable for £60 rent, but the court reduces his liability to £40. Then the guarantor's liability is reduced.

Mr. Silverman: In fact, the principal would have to pay only £40, whereas the guarantor would have to pay £60?

The Attorney-General: No; that is exactly what the Clause is intended to prevent.

Mr. Silverman: I am thinking of other contracts.

The Attorney-General: The liabilities' adjustment officer cannot reduce the liability under any other contract.

Mr. Silverman: He could provide for postponement and there would be a protection order, so that immediately payment would not have to be made.

The Attorney-General: If there were a postponement of the liability, the guarantor would not be immediately liable.

Mr. Woodburn: Does not the question of the ability of the principal to pay his rent depend upon his ability generally to pay all the debts, and is it possible to except these when it comes to the liability of the principal and the guarantor in the other cases?

The Attorney-General: I do not quite follow the hon. Member.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 20, line 9, leave out from "mortgage," to "the."

In line 10, after "lease," insert "or."

In line 10, leave out "or contract."—[The Attorney-General.]

CLAUSE 21.—(Savings.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 21, line 26, to leave out "liabilities adjustment," and to insert "protection".
The period of limitations which is preserved by this Sub-section ought to apply to the protection order and not to the liabilities adjustment order.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 21, line 34, leave out "shall."—[The Attorney-General.]

CLAUSE 26—(Extension of Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts, 1939 and 1940, to contracts made after the commencement of war.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 23, line 29, to leave out, "commencement," and to insert "passing."
I will deal with this Amendment and the remaining Amendments on the Order Paper together, since all of them arise from the same point. In the Committee we were asked whether we could expedite the date on which the Bill would come into operation, which was 1st July. It was thought that if something of that sort were not done, in the interval people might get judgments and prejudice decisions. It was impracticable to bring Part I into operation sooner, because there are a number of rather complex matters to be dealt with by rule, and the


officers must be appointed and familiarise themselves with their duties. We thought that the point could be met substantially by bringing Part II into operation immediately on the passing of the Act. Part 11 is the part which makes the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act procedure apply to post-war contracts. Therefore, if people try to jump in and get judgments, they will have to resort to the courts, and the courts will say that the cases are obviously ones in which the machinery of this Bill will be appropriate when the time comes.

Amendment agreed to

Further Amendments made:

In page 24, line 8, after "made," insert "or entered into."

In line 25, leave out "commencement," and insert "passing."—[The Attorney-General.]

CLAUSE 27.—(Extension of Possession of Mortgaged Land (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, to mortgages made after commencement of war.)

Amendments made:

In page 25, line 8, leave out "commencement," and insert "passing."

In line 9, leave out "commencement," and insert "passing."

In line 13, leave out "commencement," and insert "passing."—[The Attorney-General.]

CLAUSE 29.—(Short title and commencement.)

Amendment made:

In page 27, line 3, at the beginning, insert "Part I of."—[The Attorney-General.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[King's Consent signified.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — LANDLORD AND TENANT (WAR DAMAGE) (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill deals with three somewhat different aspects of this problem. In order to follow it, it is necessary to have in mind the provisions of the earlier Act which this House passed in the early days of the war—the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act, 1939. As Members will know, that Act provided for this sort of general machinery, namely, that if a house was rendered unfit by enemy action, the tenant was enabled to disclaim his lease, and if he was a rack tenant, that probably was the best course for him to take. If the tenant did that, or sought to do it, the landlord could serve a notice to avoid a disclaimer, the landlord undertaking liability to make the house again fit. In that case no rent was payable unless and until the landlord made the house fit. The other course which the tenant could take under that Act, and if he had a valuable lease he would be inclined to do it, was to serve a notice of retention, and by serving that notice the tenant made himself liable to repair the house. Again, rent was not payable until he so made it fit. The Act also relieved the landlord and the tenant from any liability to repair war damage whatever covenant as to repairs or to the delivering-up in good condition might be contained in the lease. That was the broad effect of the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act, which, of course, was passed at a time before there was any war damage Government scheme, the position at that time being the simple assurance that no doubt some money would be paid, but that we must wait and see how much money there was about, and how extensive was the damage.
There was also, in the original Act, a provision for an apportionment of rent, if, as might happen, part of the house was unfit, but part of it was fit and capable of occupation. That system of notices, disclaimer notices and retentions is inappropriate in the case of weekly tenants. A weekly tenant can always serve a notice to quit, but he does not follow these things, and naturally cannot do so, especially in these days, when very often a weekly tenant has his house destroyed and he is taken to a rest centre and moved off into the country. It would be quite unreasonable, as well as impracticable, to make liability for rent dependent on whether he has served a particular notice and so on. Therefore,


the first Clause of this Bill makes certain special provisions as to weekly tenancies. It is provided in Sub-section (2) that if, for instance, a cottage which is being let on a weekly tenancy is unfit by reason of war damage and is unoccupied, either in whole or part, by the tenant, no rent shall be payable under the tenancy. That is what landlords have in the main been doing. The vast number of landlords are not seeking to exact rent from weekly tenants whose houses have been rendered unfit and the tenants have gone. But there are some who may try and do it, and there is also the legal position. At the moment a tenant is liable for rent unless he has served the appropriate document. He can get out of that liability and therefore we thought it good to make this provision. There may be a house which, though unfit, is occupied or occupied in part. There may be a house which is unfit in part, but fit in part. In these two cases there is a provision that the rent shall be reduced by agreement, as it is hoped, but if that cannot be effected it may be fixed by the court.

Mr. Bellenger: How is occupation construed?

The Attorney-General: It is construed in the same way as in other Acts of Parliament. We have provided, if the hon. Member will look at Sub-section (5):
For the purposes of this Section a. tenant shall not be deemed to be in occupation of and land which is unfit by reason of war damage by reason only—

(a) that furniture or other goods belonging to or used by him remain on the land;
(b) that he visits the land from time to time for the purpose of removing, or taking steps to preserve, any such furniture or goods; or
(c) that he retains possession of the keys of any buildings or works situated on the land;"

I think that meets the point which the hon. Member put. Sub-section (4) contains an important provision with regard to the procedure for settling the question whether a house is or is not fit, and it provides that there shall be a certificate by the sanitary inspector that the house is fit, and that shall be prima facie evidence that it is fit. In this provision we have followed in the main the distinction, or rather what was implied in the distinction, in the earlier Act, and that is, of course, that the standard of fitness must have regard to what can be done in war-time

and in all the circumstances. The sanitary inspector seems to be the right person, at any rate prima facie, to express an opinion on that point. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is there any provision for appeal?"] Oh yes. If either the landlord or tenant wants to say that the house is fit and the sanitary inspector says it is not fit, or vice versa, he can go to the court. It will save a great many disputes, and it is a sensible provision in itself.

Mr. Woodburn (Stirling and Clackmannan, Eastern): Is there any minimum laid down?

The Attorney-General: No, it must depend on the circumstances. Most of us have worked for a time in a room with no windows. I have worked in a room where the windows were replaced by boards. Now I have some linen stuff. What is fitness for habitation must depend in these days on circumstances.

Mr. Woodburn: Is a house fit if the roof is still broken and dust is still falling from the roof? Is it fit if a wall is still broken? Is it fit if there is no proper water supply? Is it fit if the sanitary arrangements arc not replaced? Is there not a minimum of certain things like that which must be stipulated?

The Attorney-General: We could put that in the Bill. The proper way would be for the Ministry of Health to lay down on what standards these certificates should be granted, and I suppose the water supply and sanitary arrangements would have to be in reasonable working order. I think that is how you would have to deal with that, and, if the standard is too low, that is the way to get it raised.

Mr. George Griffiths: Do you not think that if it is not in the Bill, it will be a lawyers' paradise?

The Attorney-General: No. It may be a sanitary inspectors' paradise. I mean that it will be a matter to be dealt with by the sanitary inspector, having regard to the standards which the local authorities apply, and by the Ministry of Health. I think the lawyers will be out of it altogether. If you put it in the Bill, it would become a lawyers' paradise. If you tried to define a minimum standard of fitness, there would be matters about which people should go to court.
The following Clauses deal with notices of retention. If a man has a valuable


lease, he can, under existing legislation, serve a notice of retention. Under that notice he makes himself liable to make the house fit. When the War Damage Bill was before the House we felt, though we could not deal with it in that Bill, that a tenant who had served, or might want to serve, a notice of retention was put in a very difficult position by the form which the War Damage Act took. If ultimately he was going to get a cost-of-works payment for repairing the house, that was one thing. He served his notice, and the work that he had to do he assumed would be paid for by the Government. On the other hand, if, when the time came, he got only a value payment, his share of that value payment might be small. He therefore would find himself getting only a small amount of the pre-war value of the house and still saddled with the obligation to build it all up again, and it seemed intolerable that he should be in that dilemma, not knowing whether the obligation which he had assumed would necessitate his not putting his hand in his pocket at all or putting it in and finding large sums of money. We therefore provide in this Clause for the service of a conditional notice of retention, a notice of retention of the lease conditional on the repairs ranking for cost-of-works payment. If when the time comes the Commission decides that it must be a value payment, that notice will operate as a disclaimer, and the later Clauses of the Bill adopt and adapt the appropriate procedure in that event. I think that is a fair provision to make, and there is nothing unfair for the landlord, and it really fits in the early piece of legislation with the position as it now is under the War Damage Act. We provide in Subsection (6) of Clause 2 that those who have served notices of retention in the past can now in effect convert them into conditional notices, and that seems only right and fair.
Clause 3 deals with leases comprising separate hereditaments and provides for a possible case in which the War Damage Commission may say that part of the property comprised in the lease can rank for cost of works and part for value. Clause 4 adapts some rather special provisions of the War Damage Act to this new procedure. Clause 5 is a useful piece of procedure providing for who is prima

facie responsible for repairing the house asking for cost-of-works payments and so on. Clause 6 deals with the case, which may not be so likely after the Bill, of a tenant who has served an unconditional notice of retention, who is bound to repair, and it enables him to go before the War Damage Commission and, if a value payment is made, take the other party there; and, if he has plans for reconstruction which are approved, he can get the whole of the value payment. It is a useful piece of machinery, so that, where you have a value payment which may be split up among different people, the person who has undertaken the obligation can say, "If you give me all the money, I will reconstruct in this way." Clause 7 provides for a modification of leases when properties are reinstated not exactly as they were before, and Clause 8 applies certain machinery provisions of the War Damage Act to this Bill.
In Clause 9 we come to the third important matter dealt with by the Bill— that is, ground leases. The Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act differentiated between ground leases and leases which were not ground leases, and a ground lessee could not serve a notice of disclaimer except with the leave of the court, or a notice of retention. If one looks at the report of the Committee on which the Act was based, the view that they took was that the ground lessee has a long period to run. They also said, "We are relieving him of the very onerous obligation, which rests on all ground lessees, to hand over in good condition at the end of the period. As we are relieving him of that, we think it is not unreasonable that he should continue to pay the ground rent which represents the annual value of the site. "The position has in part changed by the passing of the War Damage Act. The relief from the liability to reconstruct is of much less advantage to-day than it was in 1939 because in many cases the ground lessee will get the work paid for by cost-of-works payment, and, in any case, he will get some payment in respect of what has been damaged.
In any event, from questions I have been asked and representations that have been made to me by Members and from what I have found out myself, I have been led to the conclusion that the question of ground leases required reconsideration. There is undoubtedly some-


thing to be said for the view which was embodied in the previous Act, but, on the whole, I think that the case for assimilating the ground lessee to the other lessee who is not a ground lessee is a strong one. Perhaps its strength can be seen best in the case in which the ground lessee does not himself occupy but leases to subtenants; he is a sub-landlord. Take the case of a man who takes a ground lease of premises. His ground lease is, say, £200 a year. He builds a house on the site and sub-lets to tenants for £1,500. They are all rack tenants paying sums which between them make up £1,500 a year. Parliament said in the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act that all these occupying tenants, either by disclaiming or, indeed, by notices of retention, could get out of paying rent while the house was unfit. The sub-landlord was, therefore, being deprived of the source to which he looked to get his £200, but he had to pay his ground landlord. That was difficult for him to do, and I am told that many ground landlords are not getting ground rents from houses that are unfit.

Mr. Silverman: Is this to be retrospective? It is true that many ground landlords have acted reasonably in this matter but others have not. In many cases rents have been compounded by the ground lessee paying a number of years' ground rent and surrendering the land as well so that the ground landlord has gained a great advantage quite inequitably. Is there any provision for reopening transactions of that kind?

The Attorney-General: It would be extremely difficult to do that. It always happens that when Parliament decides that a thing is wise people will have proceeded on a basis that that was not the law. I am not saying that I do not appreciate the force of what my hon. Friend says, but I think it would be difficult to reopen the past. Another practical argument for this provision is that though in some cases it is easy to say what is a ground lease, some leases are obviously ground leases as defined by the Act, but there are a number of border-line cases in which it is difficult to say whether the ground lease is a ground lease as defined by the Act or whether there is something more than the site value affected in the sum.

Clause 10 deals with a minor matter which wants to be put right. In certain mortgages, and possibly in certain other contracts, there was a provision that the land should be insured against war damage. In happier days one could insure against war damage, but that is now impossible. A decision of the courts has held, no doubt rightly, that the practical impossibility of effecting this insurance does not wipe out the obligation. This Clause gives relief from obligations to insure against war damage whether expressed or implied.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it not the case that under the War Damage Act land must be compulsorily insured?

The Attorney-General: That is not insurance. Although we speak of the War Damage Act as in the nature of insurance, it is not insurance in the terms of this Clause. A further provision in the Bill is that if proceedings are transferred from the county court to the High Court, as they can be if they are very complicated, they shall go to one of the judges nominated under Section 94 of the War Damage Act. That is obviously convenient because the questions that arise under this Bill will be in a similar area to those that arise under the War Damage Act. Clause 13 merely substitutes the somewhat extended definition of war damage in the War Damage Act for the original definition in the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act. The Schedule provides for certain extensions and modifications of Section 6 of the War Damage Act, which deals with the determination by the court of unfitness, and what classes are to have notice, and so on, and of Section 18, which deals with the somewhat complicated matter of multiple leases.
I hope that this is a sufficient exposition of a somewhat dry Bill which I hope will commend itself to the House. It is a very difficult area and it affects vast numbers of people. We have the novel conditions which arise from enemy action and we now have the War Damage Act providing for compensation, and it is difficult to be quite certain as to what are the best provisions in detail for dealing with the relations of landlord and tenant. I hope, however, that this Bill will commend itself to the House as an effort to solve satisfactorily the problems with which it sets out to deal.

Mr. Garro Jones: The House has once more had the advantage of a clear exposition of a rather intricate Bill from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I do not know how many Bills he has introduced on Second Reading in this Parliament, but I hope that he is notching them off on his despatch box, or, less romantically, entering them in his diary. I am sure that no predecessor of his has introduced so many Bills in Parliament. If some record of them is kept it will provide a little relief in what he has described as the rather drab annals of the Law Officers of the Crown. Looked at merely as another Bill, and as an amending Bill at that, and as a Bill which on perusal by a layman might appear to be almost incomprehensible, this Measure might appear of secondary importance. The House ought, nevertheless, to recognise what a great deal of arduous labour and thought has to be put into Bills such as this. They are building up a very complicated structure of war damage law which permeates far into our war economy and social structure and prevents enemy action from throwing the relationship of landlord and tenant into complete chaos and disarray.
I propose to deal principally with Clause 1. The Attorney-General described it as an amending Clause, but it differs from other Clauses in the Bill in that it is an inaugural Clause of an important character and introduces a new principle governing the cases of weekly tenancies if they suffer war damage. Most of us will be very glad of that, I think, because the Clause greatly simplifies the procedure and weekly tenancies are held by persons who are, for the most part, those least able to afford that legal advice without which all the elaborate structure and elaborate system of notice and counter-notice set up in Part II of the principal Act can hardly be said to be available at all. Therefore, I think, we must welcome Clause 1, because it takes those weekly tenancies by the forelock, as it were, and lifts them right out of the complicated structure of Part II of the principal Act.
I ask the House to observe what Clause 1 offers weekly tenants in return for the old procedure. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman explained, Sub-sections (2) and (3) give weekly tenants of all kinds of premises, including

dwelling-houses, the option either of vacating the premises and ceasing to pay rent or of continuing in occupation and paying such rent as may be agreed between the tenant and the landlord or, failing agreement, as may be fixed by the court. I would point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because he did not deal with this point very specifically, that the exercise of that option depends, first, upon the premises coming within the definition of unfitness as laid down in the principal Act. If the premises cannot be brought within that definition, though they may be severely damaged, there is no relief for the weekly tenant under the provisions of this Bill.
Sub-section (4) departs from weekly tenancies in general and deals with weekly tenancies of dwelling-houses, which form an important part of our property. It is rather important for the House to note, as I am sure hon. Members who have looked at the Bill have noticed, precisely to what class of premises Sub-section (4) applies. They must be dwelling-houses, they must be let on weekly tenancies, they must have been rendered unlit by war damage as defined in the principal Act, and there must have been some attempt to repair them before this Sub-section comes into operation at all. When all these conditions have been fulfilled the sanitary officer of the local authority can come along and, applying an entirely new definition of fitness, which is contained within the Sub-section itself, can pronounce the premises fit, bring back the tenant, who may have vacated them under the earlier option contained in Subsections (2) and (3) and require him to begin to pay the full rent of the house.
We are, therefore, confronting the weekly tenant of a dwelling-house with two difficult decisions, looking at this thing from a practical point of view. His house has been damaged to a greater or lesser extent and he has first to decide whether the options in Sub-sections (2) and (3) are, in fact, available to him, and he will be compelled to look at the definition of unfitness in the principal Act; and, then, though he may have vacated the premises, the local authority or the landlord may have stepped in within a few days of his vacating the premises, made some attempt—it does not specify how much attempt, it may only be putting in a few pieces of muslin in place of windows


—to repair the house, and require him to reoccupy the premises and pay full rent for them, unless, as the proviso says, the accommodation has been substantially diminished.
An enormous number of people will be affected by this provision, and I want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at the definition of unfitness which a weekly tenant will have to consider before deciding what are his rights. There is, first, the definition in the principal Act, which contains the operative words:
Unit for the purpose for which those buildings or works were used or adapted before the occurrence of the war damage in question.
In the Sub-section which we are considering at the moment, the definition of fitness is:
Shall be deemed at any time to be fit if it has been repaired to such an extent as is reasonably practicable at that time having regard to the circumstances prevailing in the locality, and sufficient to render the dwelling-house reasonably capable of being used for housing purposes.
Then there follows a number of qualifications which are intended to clarify the definition, though in my view the qualifications are rather more subject to doubt and cavil than the operative words of the definitions themselves. Everyone who has had anything to do with the law knows that the phrases "having regard to" and "all the circumstances" frequently appear in statutes, rules and orders of court, and judges and masters are frequently compelled to listen to interminable arguments or what they mean. Although obviously there should be some elasticity in order to give some discretion to those who have to determine whether these premises are fit or not, I think it would have been better to leave the operative words of the definition in each case without these vague qualifications, which will result in different standards of fitness and unfitness in different parts of the country as, indeed, they are intended to do.
At the appropriate stage we on this side intend to propose that there shall be a different definition of fitness and unfitness as regards housing premises. In doing so we do not intend to reflect in the least upon those who have drawn up the existing definitions, nor do we pretend that any amount of defining can mitigate the discomforts of those whose houses are damaged, but we are dealing with dis-

comforts inflicted upon house dwellers not as an isolated matter but in relation to the rents which they will have to pay, and in adjusting the rents I submit that we should not expend a great deal of learning in the legal sense and perhaps not quite enough in the way of that wise political decision upon which the statutes ought to have been drafted.
The Attorney-General might ask what the wise political decision is, that we should propose. The first suggestion is that Clause 1 should contain a definition of fitness on a more real test, namely, to what extent the dwelling has suffered appreciable diminution of value owing to the war damage and to what extent the rent should be adjusted, whether by a sanitary officer, or by any other officer who it might be considered should more appropriately do it. That is a point which is worth some thinking about. We have no objection to a sanitary officer making this apportionment of rent according to the damage done, yet we think it is hardly right that the sanitary officer should be compelled to say that premises are either fit or unfit. You can never say that premises are absolutely fit or absolutely unfit for their particular job. You might as well ask a sanitary officer to say that a certain object is square or round when it is really of neither shape. Perhaps the sanitary officer might be asked to determine a measure of fitness or unfitness and the rent to which the tenant is liable, according to that measure. If the sanitary officer is not considered able to carry out this function there is no reason why he should not act as assistant to the liabilities adjustment officer or the local agents of the War Damage Commission, who will have to be brought into the matter later on.
The second point which we shall seek to have embodied in the Bill at the appropriate stage is that the simpler procedure of Clause 1 should be applied to all dwelling-houses and not only to those which are under a weekly tenancy. I am unable to understand why a weekly tenant is able; by the simple process of giving a week's notice to quit, to escape from his obligations when he can no longer fulfil them, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman very fairly pointed out, while a monthly tenant is compelled to have recourse to the extremely elaborate procedure of Part II of the principal


Act. We shall, therefore, propose, and it is as well to let the right hon. and learned Gentleman know this, that the simpler procedure, which we welcome in the case of weekly tenants and which is laid down in Clause 1, shall extend to dwelling-houses of whatever tenancy. There are weekly tenants who pay very high rents and monthly or annual tenants who pay very small rents. There is a very good case to be made out for giving the benefit of the simpler procedure to the dwelling-house, the roof, of the person whose home has been damaged. We shall make that proposal at a latter stage.
We can make the proposal with the more force because we think that, in the case of dwelling-houses, the procedure should be characterised by greater celerity. There is a greater element of urgency in the case of a householder who wants to know what his rights are. Sometimes very hard things are said in this House, not only from this side but the other side, about the Parliamentary draftsmen, and against the legal profession in general. Such hard things may sometimes be justified, but they are often based on the carrying out by the legal profession of the administration of principles which have been prescribed for them by higher authority. It is, therefore, only fair to say that it is not always the fault of the lawyer.
There is a tendency, among both politicians and lawyers, when they begin to find themselves adept at procedure, to extend procedure out of all proportion to the practical considerations involved. In the development of our legal system that process has frequently had to be checked and reversed. No doubt every hon. and learned Member will remember how the old forms of procedure used to begin with statements of claim followed by counterclaims and replies, followed by rejoinders, followed by sur-rejoinders and so on, before the action began at all. I am reminded of those old forms very much by the procedure in Part II Of the principal Act, with its notice to elect, notice of disclaimer, notice to avoid disclaimer and notice of retention, to say nothing of that rather odd provision—I must say that there is something to be said for it—under which a conditional notice of retention can, if the War Damage Commission de-

cide to make a value payment, be treated as a notice of disclaimer. Procedure has been carried a little too far.
I do not suppose for a moment, if a tenant whose house had been damaged were able to afford legal advice, that his lawyer—there are some lawyers in this House who would be very competent to do it—would be unable to take him by the hand and lead him through the tortuous maze of this legislation, with an occasional pleasant interlude in the county court, to ultimate justice. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the average tenant and average landlord, or even the average lawyer, would prefer a simpler path to that goal. It is a great mistake to think that solicitors are fond of complex legislation. This kind of legislation wastes the time of solicitors and frightens the client. As for barristers, every barrister knows that the best and most persistent litigants are those who think they know something about the law. So I submit to the Government, if they find any merit in the proposal which we shall put forward for simplifying procedure and extending the simplification, that they should give this proposal favourable attention.
I do not propose to detain the House by an examination of the numerous amending and miscellaneous provisions of the Bill. Many of them are of far-reaching effect, and hon. Members will, in their turn, make observations upon the Clauses which particularly interest them. We all recognise the complexity of the legal problems, to say nothing of the human problems, which surround the whole question of war damage, but I believe that we shall determine to solve them, if we can, in a way which will promote among those affected, whether landlord or tenant, a sense of justice done.

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the House, will forgive me if I begin my speech with two personal points of apology. One is that I have to attend a Select Committee. If I am out of the Chamber during any portion of this Debate, it will be only for that reason. The second is that, perhaps, I ought to say that I have some interest in ground rents; not very much, and not quite direct, but I have, and perhaps I ought to say so.

Mr. Bellenger: Which way?

Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. Member can guess. I wish to come to a point of principle in the Bill. I disagree with the Attorney-General in finding the Bill dry and arid. It may be because I have not understood it, but it has seemed to me rather exciting and, to use a disagreeable phrase, an epoch-making Bill. A minute ago I was going to say that I was the only Conservative Private Member in the House, but now I cannot say that, and perhaps I am not so much surprised that the Conservative party, which is traditionally supposed to defend property and especially the ground landlords, should, with a very becoming kind of proud modesty, exhibit a certain pudeur about taking any interest in what might be supposed to be its interests. But I am a little surprised that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should not have been rather more anxious to be quite certain that there was no sort of advantage to doctrine or party in this Bill.
It seems to me that in this Bill as it is drafted there is a doctrinaire effect which I should have thought ought to be considered more fully by the House than it seems likely to be. After the explanation of the learned Attorney-General, it is quite clear what the tenant gets out of this. He can either disclaim or he can retain his lease, but without paying rent while the property is damaged, or he has now a third alternative; he can retain in such a way that the landlord has no certainty that he will effectively retain the lease when the time for paying rent comes round again. The tenant therefore gets very great advantages out of the Bill. The landlord, on the other hand, gets none, which would be perfectly reasonable if it were argued that there ought not to be landlords and the sooner they are abolished the better, but while those are principles which would be perfectly proper in a general election, I cannot believe that anybody in the House would wish to proceed on such principles in the present circumstances. But if we do not proceed on those principles, what are we really doing?
Any bargain between two parties contains some elements of a bet. One party bets that things will continue in such a condition, and the other in some other condition. In the case of a long lease, one party bets that on the whole the value of currency will not fall very much, and

the other party bets that on the whole bricks and mortar will last. In fact, the man who, as a ground landlord, entered into such a bet in 1913 has done very badly out of it. He saw the value of money knocked endways by the war which came almost immediately afterwards— heaven knows where the value of money will be knocked to by the present war—and look at the position he is now placed in. The house which has been built on the land which he let is blown away. He ceases to get any rent and, therefore, ceases to get the one certainty which he thought he was getting. He thought that in running the risk of currency depreciation he would have the certainty of receiving so many pounds sterling every year. Whatever else may happen, he is now having that taken away from him, and even when that right is to be allowed to revive, at a date which no one can predict and which the tenant himself is not bound to fix, he is to receive his rent in some new sort of pounds—in a depreciated sterling. The ground landlord therefore is the person who is, most particularly, being made to carry the heavier end of the burden and who is getting no consideration whatever.
I do not wish to make a Committee speech, but I do wish to suggest that if the landlord is to lose his immeditae rights by legislation, he should receive some kind of compensation. I would like to remind the House in parentheses how this legislation came about. The learned Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong, but let me begin by correcting him. He said that the principal Act was passed at the very beginning of the war. I am almost sure he is wrong and that it was passed before the war began. I think it was one of those big batches of Bills which were passed in a day with absolutely no consideration by this House, having been based on very full consideration by a Committee. The point to which I am now addressing myself particularly is that the Bill before us proposes to go back on part of the Committee's recommendations, and I think the House ought to consider the matter very carefully before doing so. Between now and the Committee stage, I would like to ask hon. Members to consider whether something of this sort could not be done. Could we not say to the tenant that, since in every one of the cases he is to be let off


his rent for a long period—perhaps one, two, or three years—he should pay something for it, namely, if he opts to retain his lease he should either continue to pay his rent as he would have had to do but for Clause 9 of this Bill, or, if he does not pay his rent, when the rent revives it should be a rent in post-war pounds? Supposing all the interests were in the hands of one person, that is what would happen. If I own all the interests in a piece of land with a block of buildings on it and the buildings are blown to bits, that is very bad luck on me; I lose the benefit of the property for the duration of the war and maybe for a year or two afterwards, but, when the usability revives, it revives for me in that case in terms of money at the time of revival. When, however, the interests happen to be split between two or more persons, then one of those persons is certain to lose in the interval, like anybody else, but he is also certain not to be allowed to gain at the end. He is certain to lose more again at the end. That is a very important point of principle on which the Committee took the line that I am now taking.
The House swallowed the principal Act without any consideration whatever, and I think the important point of principle ought now to be put to us. With all respect, it is not a point for the learned Attorney-General. It is a political and not a technical point, in regard to which there ought to be a political decision, and I hope the House will consider very carefully whether this Bill as it stands at present is not inequitable. As I said before, there are all sorts of arguments for it which would clearly be perfectly good arguments at a general election, but they are not arguments which could be decently used at the moment, and, leaving them on one side, I cannot see that any great case can be made for the equity of Clause 9, and certainly neither during the proceedings on the principal Act nor yet in the proceedings on this Bill has the House had any such argument. The Clause should not pass as it stands without a great deal more such argument than we have had.

Mr. Bellenger: After listening to the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), I do not think any of us has any doubt as to what class of interest he is speaking for. I asked

him when he disclosed his own interests from which standpoint he was affected by ground rents, as one having to pay or as one receiving? I think it is obvious that he is speaking as one having to receive them.

Mr. Pickthorn: I thought it right to make it quite clear what interests I have; but I spoke on the subject purely from my own understanding of the matter.

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, but I think it makes a big difference whether one is a ground landlord or a ground lessee. I propose to examine the Bill from the point of view of equity, and not from that of any one class, whether landlord or tenant. When the hon. Member talked of this House passing the original Act without considering it, I do not think that he was correct. I do not think I was in the House when the original Act was discussed and passed, but I know that it was based on the report of the Uthwatt Committee. I have read other documents that have emanated from that learned judge; and I must say that this Report was very reasonably, and very concisely and precisely, stated. It seemed to give the pros and cons, and come to conclusions quite accurately- Upon that Report, the original Act was introduced and passed. The original Act, although it does not deal conclusively with the subject, does deal with it in a very fair manner. But even the War Damage Act had to be revised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during its passage through this House, and in this case the original Act will need to be revised as the war is prolonged. My hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) dealt with Clause 1, which relates to weekly tenancies. There is much in what he said that I agree with. I do not think we should limit this to the weekly tenant. Many people are now taking tenancies on a month-to-month basis, and even on a quarterly basis. I think you should extend to the monthly tenant the provisions of this Clause.
With regard to ground leases, the Attorney-General was most charming, but most disarming. He started off with this thesis: If a house is damaged by enemy action, it seems a bit unfair that the lessee should continue to bear all the obligations imposed upon him by the original lease, which probably was the building lease.


He went on to say that one of the most onerous obligations, the repairing covenants, had been thrown overboard by the original Act. That is true It is a step in the right direction. Coming to the question of ground rent, he said that it seemed hardly fair that a lessee should continue to bear other obligations, such as payment of rent, if he did not get beneficial occupation of his house. We agree so far; but we might ask, as the Americans often do, "And how?" How does he propose to relieve the tenant of what he admits is a somewhat unfair burden? He says that to ground lessees the same rights are to be extended as we have given to other lessees by the original Act. They can either retain or disclaim their leases, or they can retain them conditionally. He goes on to say that if they decide to take this action, they can then be relieved of paying rent until the place is put in repair, either by the landlord or, in the other type of case, by the lessee himself. What does that mean?
In discussing a rather complicated legal problem, the best thing is to give a concrete case. Concrete cases are happening all over the country. The people with whom I am concerned are those who can bring concrete cases to our attention. A man's house is hit, and damaged beyond repair. The tenant is lucky if he escapes with his life and the clothes he stands up in. He says, "There is my house gone; no more beneficial occupation for me." Some days afterwards he receives a reminder from the ground landlord that he has not paid his ground rent. If he ignores that notice a writ is issued to recover possession—not always to recover possession of the ground rent, but to recover possession of the lease. There is a reason why ground landlords, particularly in London, want to get back their leases or their land. In view of the devastation that is taking place in and around our big cities, land is bound to increase in value, whatever steps are taken to stop speculation. If a landlord whose forbears originally granted a 99 years' lease in 1865 —with, therefore, about 20 years to run— can recover possession of the reversion more quickly than otherwise would have been the case, the value of his land is enhanced. At the end of the war he will have land—which we in this party have always- said is the sole source of wealth. He can let that land at a much higher

ground rent than was possible 99 years ago.
The Attorney-General has admitted in this Bill the right of a weekly tenant not to pay rent if his premises are unfit. Why not carry that principle a little further? If a ground lessee's premises are unfit, why should he not enjoy the same advantages as the weekly tenant? It is true that he need not pay that ground rent if he does one of three things—retains or disclaims the lease, or conditionally retains it. But he has bought that lease before the war, at a high premium probably, in the open market. To do so, he has gone to his bank, building society, or insurance company, and has borrowed money. So he is doubly involved in this transaction. He is liable not only for ground rent to the ground landlord, but for mortgage repayments and interest to his mortgagee. We have been told, in connection with the War Damage Act, that mortgages are a personal bond, and that, however much you may shelve your leases, the mortgage bond remains tied around your neck until you die. If you have other security than your house, the mortgagee can get it. He can get it through the ordinary processes of the court. It is unjust and unfair that we should adopt this rather cumbrous method of half-protecting the lessee, but at considerable expense to him, because under the Bill the only thing he can do is to get rid of his lease and his whole capital investment, which may represent the savings of many years. Let us proceed on the system, which I thought we had laid down in this House, of equality of sacrifice.
Why should ground landlords receive a penny out of those leases if the tenant of the premises receives no beneficial occupation or income whatever? There is no reason in equity for it, and I suggest to my hon. Friends on this side of the House and, I hope, to broadminded hon. Members opposite, that we cannot allow this Bill to pass in its present form. If we do, we shall be benefiting ground landlords as a class, because they are concerned with the capital value of their interests, whereas the ground lessee, in the majority of cases, is concerned with his house, or his home, if he is an occupying owner. At any rate, his capital value will dwindle right away in the course of time as the lease expires, and it


has dwindled now because a bomb has destroyed his house. It is not only a question of a man owning land and letting it to a builder, who will build a house upon it. It may perhaps have been a speculation on the part of the original owner of the site to let his land at a ground rent, hoping to come into the reversion one of these days, with the house in full repair, but the fact remains that the values of land are bound to rise in populous centres, and the more destruction there is, the more that value will rise.
I suggest to the representatives of the Government present that they should look into this question of ground rents a little more closely and proceed on the fair lines that they have adopted in Clause I of the Bill as far as weekly tenants are concerned. May I put a further argument, which, I hope, will convince Members? Under the War Damage Act we absolve the owner of the house, whether he be freeholder or Jeaseholder, from paying any contribution at all by way of war damage premium if the house is unfit. The Government have decided that they will not collect the extra taxation until compensation is paid after the war if the house is unfit. That is very fair. They have also decided that, in the case of war damage premiums, the burden is to be spread between the freeholder, the mortgagee and the lessee, which is also a very fair provision. Why not, therefore, adopt the same measures when it comes to the question of paying ground rent? Let me give the Government a very convincing case. They themselves are ground landlords. They own quite a number of Crown lands, in Regent Street, for instance. I put a Question to the Minister of Agriculture the other day and asked him whether the Crown were insisting upon the full payment of ground rents which they owned where premises had been affected by enemy air-raid action? The answer was that in some cases the Crown had made provision either to waive or to mitigate the burden of ground rent on their own lessees. If the Crown have so far admitted the principle of relieving lessees of part, or perhaps the whole, of their burden where they have suffered damage by enemy air-raid action, why should we not make it compulsory upon the vast body of ground landlords, many of whom—and

I say this in no class spirit—are either rich corporations or rich individuals? Why, for instance, should it be fair for the Duke of Bedford, who has inherited that land, or the Duke of somewhere else, to insist upon collecting ground rent where houses have been razed to the ground? That is the sort of suggestion that we shall have if the Bill passes in its present form. You will have thousands of lessees saying, "We get national unity but class legislation." If hon. Members want to continue this unity throughout the war they must give a fair deal to all classes.
The class which is least able to bear these burdens during the war is the class with the smallest amount of income. Hon. Members will know that thousands of property owners, who are really house-owners who have worked hard all their lives in order to acquire their little cottage or home, stand to-day almost at the door of ruin, and no Bills such as those which we have just passed will help them. They are looking to the country for equality of sacrifice, so that if they put their whole efforts into the war they will have a chance at some time of building up their homes once again. It seems that at the present time there is very little chance of that, because if it is a valuation payment, the probability is they will not get enough to pay their mortgagees. I have put the case as forcibly and fairly as I can, and I would ask the Government to reconsider it. I desire as much as any hon. Member in this House to prosecute the war to a satisfactory conclusion. We have to obtain a better Britain and better circumstances in the future. We must throw overboard a lot of old conceptions and look at individuals as individuals. We have to say, "What are your circumstances? If your circumstances are harsh, we will do our best to ameliorate those circumstances." Perhaps, as the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Ministry of Health is here, the hon. Lady will answer this question at some time. Under a certain Clause in this Bill a sanitary inspector is the one to give a certificate as to fitness or unfitness. But it is quite possible that opinions of sanitary inspectors will differ according to the various districts, and I think that the Attorney-General said that some standard would be laid down by the Ministry of Health. If the Ministry of Health is to


issue some Regulations on that point, would it not be possible to have them laid in some draft form, so that we can sec what they are like before we come to the Committee stage?
There is another point with regard to Clause 1, about which I would like to ask a question which applies particularly to the Ministry of Health. What is to be the position of the local authorities? If you absolve a tenant from liability to pay rent because he is not in occupation, although his furniture may be there, is the landlord or somebody else then to be compelled to pay rates to the local authority? I think that if by circumstances of war you waive a rent, that is a consideration which ought to be taken into account by the local authorities. If there is no rent, there should be no rates, and I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that local authorities, if they have not already got it, should be given power to waive rates entirely in such cases. At the present moment I think it is purely an act of grace on their part when they do waive the rates. The circumstances of the ratepayer are taken into account when coming to that decision. Clause 2, Subsection (2) states:
If the War Damage Commission determine to make a value payment as aforesaid.…
When will the War Damage Commission say they will make a value payment or a cost-of-works payment? If it is to be left until after the war, it seems to me that the other provisions of this Bill will not be able to operate. The War Damage Commission will have to say quickly whether they will make a value payment or a cost-of-works payment, so that the ground lessee can decide which of the three alternatives he will use—retention, conditional retention or disclaimer.
There is only one other thing I wish to say, and I suppose it is a hardy periodical. Is it not time that we tried to bring our form of legislation up to date? In looking through this Bill one has to keep an eye on the original Bill. Is it not possible, in a Bill of this nature and in other Bills, to bring all the legislation under one roof? As we go on in this war introducing legislation and amending legislation, we should try to keep it as compact as possible. I know the Parliamentary Secretary will not be able to answer that point, but it has come before the House on previous occasions

and has come forcibly before me as I have tried to unravel this legislation by dodging from this Bill to the original Bill.

Mr. Woodburn: I naturally approach this Bill with some humility, as one who is not one of the learned Members of the House, and in dealing with points of law that is, indeed, a handicap. I do not propose to enter into the many questions upon which my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) has touched, because, quite frankly, I do not think it is possible in a Bill of this kind to remake the social legislation under which we live. It may be true that dukes and devils should not be drawing unearned increments, but I think that is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with rather than this Bill.
I think it is a good thing that Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1 make it clear that the tenant pays no rent if his house has been blitzed and that if a house is unfit by reason of war damage, it may be possible to come to an agreement for lesser payment of rent as between tenant and landlord. This, of course, has been anticipated in practice, because people by common good sense have in many cases come to an accommodation in this matter. Both landlords and tenants have shown a reasonableness which I think is a credit to our population, although I am sorry to say there have been cases where landlords have been alleged to have said that they would rather see their houses stand empty than not get their full rents. I hope the Government will take steps to persuade the courts to deal with such cases, so that people are not kept out of houses simply because they are not prepared to come to an agreement to pay rent for a damaged house.
There is another point which is not clear and which I hope will be made clear later. The definition of a dwelling-house says that a dwelling-house means a house or part of a house let as a separate dwelling. But suppose you have a house in which only part is fit for human occupation and the rest unfit. Does the tenant have to pay rent for the complete house if he is able to occupy only a part of the house? If he is able to occupy only half of the house, does he have to pay rent for the whole house? Under the definition that is certainly not clear.

Mr. Silkin: Does my hon. Friend refer to weekly or monthly tenancies?

Mr. Woodburn: This part of the Bill refers to a weekly tenancy, although I support the idea that it might be extended to cover monthly or other tenancies. The question of whether land or a house is unfit by reason of war damage quite clearly depends on what war damage means. If war damage means that half a house is wiped out, does the tenant have to pay a proportion of the rent for a portion of the house?

The Attorney-General: That is quite clear.

Mr. Woodburn: Sub-section (4) of Clause 1 says:
… having regard to the circumstances prevailing in the locality …
"Locality" is a wide term. Does it mean within the region of the local authority, a ward or the district? For instance, the whole locality of Clydebank is blitzed.

The Attorney-General: Is the hon. Gentleman taking that as an illustration, because this Bill does not refer to Scotland?

Mr. Woodburn: Yes, I was taking it as an illustration. Let me take another illustration. Suppose East Ham was blitzed. Does that locality or the whole London County Council area come in? If you take in the whole London area when you are dealing with East Ham, it means that you have other normal houses to compare with the houses in the blitzed East Ham area. But if you take a limited area, you may have circumstances which make the dwelling-houses fit for habitation if they keep out the rain but give you no other protection at all. It says that a sanitary inspector of the local authority may give a certificate, but you might have a local authority area where the boundary is a street. On one side of that street, you may have normal houses facing the bombed houses. Are the blitzed houses to be compared with the normal houses? I respectfully suggest that the decision of a sanitary inspector is not enough; the decision ought to be on the authority of the medical officer of health or the chief sanitary inspector. If it is done by a sanitary inspector, you might get varieties of opinion as to the fitness of a house. Some practical illus-

trations have proved that such certificates do not meet the issue.
The law in my part of the country says that a house is fit for human habitation if it is wind and water-tight, and I think the instructions of the Ministry must go a little further and stipulate certain minimum standards. I think the roof and walls should be covered, that the floor should be whole, that the house should be capable of being locked up, and that there should be clean water, sanitary arrangements and light available. It may be that if the whole country was wiped out, that would be impossible, but as far as we can see it is possible to ensure certain minimum standards. I suggest that the Ministry should set up some minimum and guarantee that people will not be asked to pay the full rent for a house which does not provide them with that minimum.
At the present time, we examine these Bills not for the purpose of finding fault with them, but for the purpose of drawing upon the knowledge and experience of the House to ensure that a Bill, when it becomes an Act, covers all possible contingencies and is the best Act that the House can make. It is in that spirit that I have made my suggestions, and I hope that the result may be one or two improvements which will make the Bill more satisfactory. The Bill will be welcomed by those people to whom it will give protection. I am certain that this Bill, like other Bills that we have passed, makes for a fairer distribution of the burden of the damage that occurs. I am sure it is the will of the House that this damage should be equitably shared by all sections of the population. Those for whom I speak will not grudge making their share of the sacrifice if others do the same.

Major Milner (Leeds, South-East): I had not the advantage of hearing the Attorney-General's speech, and, therefore, I hope the House will forgive me if I raise one or two questions with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has dealt. This is a most helpful Bill. It is one of those Bills that are brought forward nowadays almost weekly and which take into account the changing conditions arising particularly from the bombing of various areas. Week by week, in this way, the House endeavours to help people and to moderate the effects of the


bombing attacks and other ills which befall the population of the country in these days. As one of my hon. Friends has said, it is true that, in dealing with these Bills, we are always in a certain difficulty in that there is a great deal of reference to previous Acts. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware of the fact that for many years there have been Consolidation Committees. I have had the fortune, or the misfortune, to sit on those committees for many years, and from time to time before the war a number of Consolidation Acts dealing with various aspects of local government, health, housing, and so on, were brought before the House. For obvious reasons that process has not been continued during the war, and, moreover, I think it would be waste work to consolidate Acts on the subject of landlord and tenant, for example, when almost monthly alterations are made in the law regarding them. However, I join with my hon. Friends in expressing the hope that the process of consolidation will go on as soon as circumstances permit.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) made, if I may say so, an excellent speech and offered certain suggestions, one of which, at any rate, I wish cordially to support. It is the proposal that the Bill should be extended to all dwelling-houses, and not merely to those let on weekly tenancies. I should like to see it further extended to small shops. It is wrong in these days of war to confine our efforts to helping the less fortunate members of the community who were formerly known as the working classes. I do not think any of my hon. Friends on this side of the House will contest the fact that many people in the working classes are earning to-day very much more money than the so-called middle classes, small shopkeepers, and so on, who have frequently suffered severe reductions. I feel that such advantages as are conferred by this Bill ought not to be given to one class of the community only, but, as far as possible, to all classes. Therefore, I should like the Bill to apply not merely to weekly tenants, but to the tenants of all dwelling-houses, and to small shopkeepers and people of that class, if an appropriate definition can be found.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) suggested that the certificate of the fitness or otherwise

of the house should be given by the medical officer of health and also that some definition or instruction should be issued as to the precise condition which would enable the sanitary inspector to give a certificate. In the matter of sanitary inspectors, I am an interested party, as president of the north-eastern centre of their association. I am bound to say that I have been amazed by the qualifications which sanitary inspectors appear to have in these modern days. Most people imagine, as quite frankly I did until I became more closely associated with them, that sanitary inspectors have no examinations, or at any rate very easy examinations, to pass, and that not a very great degree of intelligence or knowledge is required to enable them to carry out their functions. But I find that the modern sanitary inspector is an extremely well-qualified man, and that in point of fact many of the medical officers of health who give evidence at inquiries, and so forth, derive all, or almost all, the facts necessary for their evidence from their sanitary inspectors, with the result that in many cases the sanitary inspector does the work and the medical officer gets the credit.

Mr. Woodburn: May I interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend to say that I meant no reflection on the sanitary inspectors? All I intended to say was that in some towns there is no chief sanitary inspector, and that the medical officer of health acts as the chief sanitary inspector. The sanitary inspector's qualifications may be different, but in his own department they are quite equal to those of the medical officer of health.

Major Milner: I know that sanitary inspectors would welcome the appointment of chief sanitary inspectors everywhere, and little by little that is being done. My hon. Friend also wanted a rather more precise definition of the condition of the house. I should have thought that the Bill was sufficiently clear on that point, for Clause 1 (4) states:
A dwelling house let on a weekly tenancy which has been rendered unfit by war damage shall be deemed at any time to be fit if it has been repaired to such extent as is reasonably practicable at that time, having regard to the circumstances prevailing in the locality, and sufficient to render the dwelling house reasonably capable of being used for housing purposes.
It seems to me that there would be no difficulty in a sanitary inspector, or any


other authority accustomed to considering the condition of dwelling houses, giving a certificate in accordance with that definition, and in that respect I feel that no Amendment to the Bill is necessary.
The only other point to which I want to refer is that of ground rents. As I understand Clause 9, the principal Act, which formerly did not apply to ground leases, will now apply to them in like manner. I should be grateful if the Attorney-General will note this point, because there is a difference of opinion on these benches in regard to this matter, which is extremely complicated. I understand that as a result of Clause 9, the owner of a ground lease will be in a position to serve a notice of disclaimer if the property is rendered unfit. Of course, whether he will do that or not will depend on a great number of factors, one of which would clearly be that where the lease is a beneficial one, and where, if the lease is for a number of years, the property is likely to increase in value. Presumably in such cases he will not serve a disclaimer but a notice of retention. If he serves such a notice, he will be entitled, following the procedure under the Schedule, to have an abatement of rent in regard to his ground lease. As,I understand it, under the Schedule it will be possible to do what is obviously just and equitable, but if that is not possible, I hope that some alteration will be made to ensure it. The provisions of the Schedule are very wide and appear to envisage a reduction of the ground rent pro rata to the abatement enforced by the tenant or sub-lessee, against the ground landlord, so that the tenant, the lessee and the ground landlord will all bear not unequally a fair proportion of the loss. If I am wrong, perhaps whoever is to reply will deal with that question

The Attorney-General: My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that that part of the Schedule to which he refers applies only where there are two or more separate tenements covered by one lease.

Major Milner: Does it not refer to ground landlords?

The Attorney-General: Yes, Sir. It applies to ground landlords where there are two or more separate tenements.

Major Milner: Perhaps the Attorney-General will tell me why the same privileges or rights are not given in the case of one tenement.

The Attorney-General: I think that, if one considers the normal ground lease where there is only one tenement, it is difficult to see how an apportionment would arise. The provision for apportionment was directed to a case of a building where, say, one storey has gone, and the rest was fit. If there was any beneficial occupation of the site, the ground rent would presumably be payable because the site was being used. If the whole site is being used, the whole of the ground rent is payable.

Major Milner: Quite clearly that is what I do not "desire to see. Although it may be true that the ground may be fully occupied, by that interpretation the ground would also be fully occupied if there was a destroyed building upon it or even a few bricks. It is a matter of some importance on which I should like to have an explanation.

The Attorney-General: No doubt we can discuss the matter at a later stage. As I understand it, under the provisions of the original Act there is power to apportion rent if part is fit aud part unfit for occupation. Under these powers, so far as ground leases are concerned, for what I call totality sites, plus buildings which are unfit, then the ground lessee can disclaim and get out of paying his rent, or, given a conditional notice of retention, receive cost of works, which is a very beneficial arrangement. Supposing he occupies the ground floor of the building, then the rack rent may be apportioned, but the ground rent would be exigible.

Major Milner: Suppose he occupied one wing?

The Attorney-General: That is a question of degree.

Major Milner: Of course, we cannot go into details now, but clearly where only a portion of the building on the site is occupied the ground landlord should forgo a similar proportion of the rent to that forgone by the tenant. Otherwise there is no equality of sacrifice. It means that the ground landlord will get the full rent and everyone else will have to make a sacrifice. With the other observations I have


made, and which were made by other hon. Members on these benches, and subject, as 1 hope, to some alteration in this latter respect, I think the House may properly approve the Second Reading of the Bill as a further useful contribution to the laws passed on this matter.

Sir Robert Tasker: There are one or two matters to which I wish to refer very briefly. The first is that it will be wrong for us to make exaggerated statements, which I am sure are not made deliberately. It was stated that the value of the ground rent could not arise, but that could be qualified because there are thousands of families in this country where it cannot be altered because they are granted under what is known as a fee farm rent or a perpetual ground rent. One of the grievances felt to-day by people who are living in partially demolished premises is that the competent authority for determining whether or not rates are payable is the local authority. My experience goes to show that the local authority invariably say that so long as there is any article of furniture in the premises, rates are payable. That, to my mind, is most unjust, and that power ought to be taken away from the local authority. The Bill would be greatly improved if a Clause could be inserted, making it perfectly clear that if any premises suffer from enemy action, and cannot be used in a normal way, then the owner should be relieved of this charge for rates.
I am a little concerned about the Clause which refers matters to the War Damage Commission. The War Damage Commission are a body of people who seem to be tremendously overworked at the present moment. They seem to be between wind and water. Great powers are conferred upon them, but, as I understand it, their ruling is always subject to the ruling of the Treasury, in dealing with property which has been damaged by enemy action. I find myself travelling in a circle. First you apply to the Board of Trade, who, to some extent, deal with your claim, and then it is handed over to the Ministry of Works and Buildings. You get so far, and then it is passed on to the Commission, and when you get to the Commission they say it is subject to the ruling of the Treasury. When you get there, the Treasury say, "Have the Board of Trade agreed to the licence?" So you go round and round and never get anywhere. You

do not get any claim settled, and you never get any adjustment. I would ask the Minister to consider whether the War Damage Commission have not already sufficient work to do without imposing this further liability upon them.
One of my hon. Friends referred to locality. My experience is this. Locality, in practice, means the local authority, and you find no two local authorities taking the same view. I think the object of the Bill should be to make for uniformity and to compel local authorities to act in a uniform manner. In one borough you will find that business in a given area has fallen off. People are giving up their leases. The landlord, to secure some kind of revenue, has reduced their rents, whereupon the tenants go to the local authority and say," I have given up my lease and have a short lease granted me at a much less rent. Will you please adjust my rateable value? "One local authority will say," Yes, that is reasonable. "Another will say," It is impossible for us to do that unless we take into review the whole of our area. "I should be happy to send the Attorney-General such a case to illustrate and prove what I have advanced. Another thing that might be brought into operation is to make each of these Clauses retrospective.
There are one or two points which to me, at any rate, are confusing. There is a little confusion between ground lease and ground rent. A ground lease, as I understand it, is the original lease granted by the owner of the land, and the ground rent is the charge upon that land for a certain period. I think it is only fair that, if a property is entirely demolished and all income ceases from it, I, as a ground landlord, should bear my proportion. If half-a-dozen houses are destroyed, clearly the income of the lessees is nil, and I, as a ground landlord, should say that my income shall be nil until someone comes along and rebuilds. That can be done to-day by forfeiture of lease, but surely the victim of enemy aggression has suffered sufficiently by having his property destroyed without inflicting a further penalty upon him by saying," You can get out of your obligation by surrendering." It seems to me that the appropriate thing would be for the ground landlord to be compelled to grant a new ground lease, as it were, at


the same ground rent for the unexpired period. I am desirous that there shall be equality of treatment between ground landlord, ground lessee and others interested in the property, except the house-farmer. I would hang him, because he has let out four corners of a room and grumbles because he cannot let the middle of the floor and the ceiling. There axe various other considerations, but I would rather wait till the Committee stage and until the Attorney-General has had an opportunity of considering the points that I have put forward.

Mr. Silkin: I, like others who have spoken, welcome the Bill because it is an improvement on the position as it is to-day. There are three points with which I want to deal. In the first place, Clause I relates to weekly tenancies only. I fail to understand why this simplified procedure should be confined to weekly tenants. It is possible for a yearly tenant to pay his rent weekly. There are many tenants in London, occupying houses side by side, paying exactly the same rent, though in one case the rent is paid weekly and in another monthly. It is fortuitous whether it is paid one way or the other. Sometimes, as a matter of convenience, where the tenant is not at home very much, an arrangement is made for monthly payments, though the other conditions are exactly the same. Under the Bill a person who pays his rent weekly will have the benefit of this simplified procedure, while the tenant who pays monthly, or a monthly tenant, will not get the benefit. There are a large number of yearly and quarterly tenants paying the same kind of rent as a weekly tenant. I think there must be an underlying assumption in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mind that a yearly tenant is a person who pays a high rent and a weekly tenant a person who pays a small rent. Normally that might be the case, but, in London certainly, large numbers of people are yearly tenants, paying their rent monthly or quarterly, and a still larger number are monthly tenants, paying their rent monthly. I hope that in Committee it will be possible to enlarge the scope of the Clause so as to bring in monthly, quarterly and yearly tenants. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman should think it necessary to impose some limitation, I should be

prepared to accept the limitation of rent making it apply to tenancies where the rent is under £120 a year, or something of that sort, in the same way as the Rent Restriction Act, where the application is limited to rent under a certain amount. That will be a simpler way of dealing with the matter.
The second point to which I want to refer—and I confess that I do not know the answer to it—is that this Bill is a very complicated Measure. There is a great deal of legislation by reference, and if it is intended for the small man, it will be very difficult for him if he has to have in front of him copies of this Bill, of the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act, 1939, and of the War Damage Act, and has to roam from one to another before he can understand the position. Inevitably anyone who wants to take advantage of this Measure will have to get legal advice and pay for it. In the interests of the people for whom we are legislating, it would have been better to have had more simple legislation.

Mr. Logan (Liverpool, Scotland Division): Or free legal advice.

Mr. Silkin: I deplore this legislation by reference, which seems to be growing. Clause 8 is a perfect example of it, and no layman could possibly understand its meaning.

The Attorney-General: He will not need to. It would have been waste of paper to set out all these provisions in full, for they do not affect the rights of the ordinary member of the public at all.

Mr. Silkin: Anyone who wants to ascertain to what extent this Measure applies to him will have to read and understand Clause 8. He cannot afford to let it go by on the assurance that it might not apply to him.

The Attorney-General: It relates to certain powers of the War Damage Commission exercisable in connection with their functions.

Mr. Silkin: I cannot accept that the exercise of those functions would not affect the ordinary person. It might conceivably affect all sorts of people. It is a pity that legislation should be drafted in such involved language.
Another point that I want to make is that Clause 1, which is admittedly for the


benefit of small people, makes it necessary, in default of agreement, for people to go to court. The normal rent may be 12s. a week, and the tenant may submit that it ought to be 6s. on account of damage, but in order to get his rights, to have his rent reduced he must go to court. The expense of going to court will far exceed anything the tenant is likely to gain. I hope that it will be found possible in small differences of opinion of this sort to avoid the necessity of going to court by providing some cheaper and more expeditious procedure. I should not hesitate to give the decision on these matters to a person like the liabilities adjustment officer who will be appointed under the last Measure that we discussed. Instead of the landlord and tenant going to court, paying heavy fees, and having to discuss matters in legal and technical language, they could go to somebody and get a decision of what is a fair rent of the premises, having regard to the damage that has been done. It would be preferable to have a bad decision quickly and cheaply than to have to go to court, with all the expenditure and complexity involved, and perhaps get a better decision. There is no reason to imagine that you would not get a wise decision by leaving it in the hands of somebody like an estate agent or a sanitary inspector or somebody of that sort, and there is no reason to suppose you would get a wiser decision if you went to court and left it to somebody who could not inspect the premises but would have to rely on the evidence and consequently might easily go wrong.
A point which has been discussed by several of my hon. Friends is the position of the lessee who holds a long lease and whose premises have been damaged. After the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Holbom (Sir R. Tasker) who spoke as a ground landlord and accepted the view put forward on these benches, it is not perhaps necessary for me to say anything. I would, however, like to emphasise a fact which has not been fully brought out, that there will be cases where premises held on a long lease on a ground rent will be entirely unusable. The tenant or the lessee admittedly has the option of disclaiming the premises, in which case he may have to give up what is a valuable lease. His only other alternative is to go on paying rent.

The Attorney-General: No, it is not. The whole point of the Bill is, by enabling him to serve a conditional notice of retention, to be relieved of paying his rent. It is made conditional on his receiving cost-of-works payment, and he can be assured that he will not be called upon to undertake the liability to make the premises fit unless the War Damage Commission regard it as a case for a cost-of-works payment

Mr. Silkin: If that means that the lessee will pay no rent until the premises are in repair or are restored to their original condition, or that he will get his share of a value payment, I will admit that the difficulty is met. I would like to have an assurance that that is the case.

The Attorney-General: I tried to explain the matter on Second Reading, but substantially that is as I stated it.

Mr. Silkin: I will not press the matter further, because if my right hon. and learned Friend is really endeavouring to meet this difficulty, it merely becomes a Committee point should it turnout that the position requires strengthening. I must confess, however, that as a lawyer I read the Bill and did not get that interpretation. I hope that other lawyers will be more successful in getting it. I trust that the Bill will reach the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh):: My right hon. and learned Friend, I know, will realise that this Bill has been welcomed by hon. Members in all parts of the House. The welcome of Clause 1 is such that many hon. Members have expressed the wish that it should be extended to various other cases, and that not only weekly tenancies, but monthly and other tenancies, and that not only houses, but shops and other properties, should be included. My right hon. and learned Friend says that he is willing to look into the matter to see whether there can be adjustments, because, after all, this Bill was brought forward to meet certain definite difficulties in connection with war damaged houses.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) says that the ground lessee is only half protected. I wrote down those words, and so he will see that I have taken note of them. I did not quite understand


all his argument, but I shall read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It seemed to me that he did not want to be wholly protected only, but wholly protected and getting something better than he had ever had before; but perhaps that is not the suggestion. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill my right hon. and learned Friend explained the meaning of Clause 9, which deals with the difficult subject of the ground lessee. It actually deals with many of the points which hon. Members have put forward as difficulties which ought to have been dealt with, and I think that when they have studied it further they will see that it does go a long way to meeting those difficulties, though it may not meet them all; but, as my right hon. and learned Friend says, the details will be further considered on the Committee stage and if possible an improvement will be made.
Several hon. Members have brought up points as to the certificate of fitness which is to be given by the sanitary inspector. The suggestion has been made that we should lay down what is to be the standard of fitness in Regulations that could be seen by Members of the House before the Bill is passed. Those of us who have had to deal with this subject to a certain extent realise the difficulties. As the war goes on, it becomes a question of the material and the labour that are available, and we cannot lay down a standard of fitness which would be the standard of fitness in peace-time. We could not say in war-time that unless certain things were in a house it must be considered to be not fit for habitation. For myself, I should be very sorry to see an attempt made to standardise in great detail what was to be considered as "fitness." We might prescribe a particular standard at one time, and then find some localities where they could go beyond that standard, but if that standard had been laid down then things would be kept down to that limit.

Mr. Bellenger: The only reason why I suggested that we ought to see what is in the draft Regulations was that the Attorney-General, when he was asked what would happen if a number of sanitary inspectors disagreed, said it would then become a question for the Ministry of Health.

Miss Horsbrugh: That is because we already come in under the heading

"First-Aid Repairs." As the hon. Member knows, there have to be repairs to make a damaged house fit for habitation, and so we have already had a certain amount of practice in trying to get this standard, but I am bound to say that we need not have uniformity throughout the country. If in one area certain supplies are available, then, naturally, the sanitary inspector there would press for those supplies to be used. In another part of the country it might be quite impossible to get corresponding supplies. I think hon. Members will see that if we attempt to lay down a general standard we shall probably do worse for the people of the country than if we leave it to be the standard of the local authority or the locality. That is what we are doing with "First-aid repairs." Of course, the house has to be wind- and weather-tight. I was asked whether, if the roof was leaking, that would be considered all right. Certainly not. In our first aid repairs standards the house must be wind and weather-tight. Then we had been asked about the water supplies. Hon. Members will agree that on some occasions there may not be water in our houses, but yet we have to live in them, and in due course the water supply comes back. It is the same with heating, lighting, the windows, and all the rest. After a great deal of consideration I think it is better to leave it to the different localities to see that the standard of fitness for habitation is drawn up with those ideas in mind and taking into account the labour and material available.

Mr. Woodburn: It is not so much a question of the condition in which the house is before it may be lived in, as the question of what standard of fitness has to be reached before the tenant will be liable to pay the full rent. They may be two different points.

Miss Horsbrugh: I think I am right in saying that if the whole of the house is habitable, has been made fit for habitation, the rent will have to be paid. If only a part of the house is fit and a part unfit there will have to be a deduction in the rent for the unfit portion.

Mr. Garro Jones: I do not think the hon. Lady has yet quite grasped the point. We are not dealing with fitness in the abstract sense, but fitness in relation to rents. It is impossible to say that


a house is absolutely fit or absolutely unfit. Our point is that according to the measure of damage done to the house so the rent should be reduced.

Miss Horsbrugh: I want to try to get this point straight. We do not say that because a house is not exactly as it was before it suffered the effects of enemy action—it may have a window out or two windows out—the rent has to be reduced. What we do say is that if a part of the house is not fit for habitation the rent will be reduced in proportion to the unfit part which cannot be used.

Mr. Woodburn: I am sorry to interrupt again, but there is a distinction; at least, I feel that I can see one. I agree with what the hon. Lady says, but we have been discussing the degree of fitness when the whole rent would have to be paid. Is there to be a minimum degree of fitness? The hon. Lady gave an example where the full degree of fitness was not reached and yet the people would have to live in the house, say, without water or without a lock on the door. Will the fact that people are living in the house mean that they will have to pay the full rent, or is there to be a degree of fitness before full rent will be exacted?

Miss Horsbrugh: I am sorry if I have not made the point clear, and I will try again. The house will either be unfit for habitation, in which case the rent is not paid, or it will be fit for habitation and the rent will be paid, but in saying that it is fit for habitation we have not laid it down that the house has to be up to the full standard of pre-war fitness.

Mr. Woodburn: Then up to what standard has it to be?

Miss Horsbrugh: Fit for habitation. The only standard is "Fit for habitation."

Mr. Buchanan: In other words, the law will be as it stands now?

Mr. Garro Jones: The point I am making is that in one area the whole house may have to be looked at in the light of the availability of materials and labour, and in a heavily blitzed area the standard of habitation may be so low as to impose immense discomfort on the inhabitants, and although we may not be able to avoid

that position of affairs we ought not to insist upon the tenant paying the full rent.

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, I agree, but the standard we ought to be able to reach is, "fit for habitation." The hon. Gentleman says, I gather, that if the sanitary inspector has said that a house is fit for habitation, the person that occupies it shall pay the full rent, although the standard of fitness might have come down low because of the lack of material. If the person in question says that he considers the standard so low that his house is not fit for habitation and he cannot agree with the sanitary inspector or the landlord, there is an opportunity for an appeal to the court.

Mr. Buchanan: Are there not standards to which even the court has to conform?

Miss Horsbrugh: Like other hon. Members, I have had a certain amount to do with damaged houses, and we all realise the difficulties. I want to make it clear from the start that we are not setting up a housing standard for war-time or saying that, because somebody's house is not up to the standard it followed before the war, the rent has to be reduced. We say that if a house is not fit for habitation, the rent shall not be paid; if it is a case of division, one part of the house being not fit for habitation while the other is, the rent shall be apportioned. Supposing a person goes to the court, we must leave it to the court to decide whether the house is fit for habitation.

Mr. Garro Jones: We are getting a bit nearer, but the courts will have to take into consideration precisely the same points as a sanitary officer will have to consider when he says whether a house is fit or unfit. If conditions are such that it is impossible, in a heavily blitzed area, to provide even a 20 per cent, standard for the whole house, nevertheless the tenant will be obliged to pay the full rent, so that the safeguard of going to the court, besides being expensive and difficult, will leave him in no better case than if he had accepted the decision of the sanitary officer.

Mr. Buchanan: Hear, hear, because the sanitary officer will decide the matter in any case.

Miss Horsbrugh: If hon. Members will look at the Bill they will find that we


have gone as near as we can. There is a chance for hon. Members to put down Amendments for the Committee stage. I think they will agree that if we were now to give a list of what was meant exactly by "fit for habitation" during the war, or what standard we should be able to continue to have, they would find it difficult to do so. I think we must leave it at that. I am sorry if I have not been able to satisfy hon. Members. We are convinced that it is not possible to go further than the general idea, which we are following out now with first-aid repairs, of making houses fit for habitation, and wind-and-weather-tight. I hope that hon. Members are familiar with what we have been doing in first-aid repairs. This is the matter which affects my Department and on which we have had a certain amount of experience.
I have tried to put the matter as clearly as possible. I noticed that the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) said he found a few points in the Bill confusing. I can only say that he is very lucky if he found only a few confusing points. On the subject of the discussion which we had on ground landlords and leases, my hon. Friend also said he hoped the Minister would consider the speeches which had been made. We hope that those who have spoken will also look at what my right hon. Friend has said. When we come to the Committee stage we shall be able to deal with this matter further. Far better and clearer explanations can be made by my right hon. Friend than I shall be able to make, after what I have just done.
On the subject of rates, we have sent a circular to the local rating authorities pointing out the difficulties and some of the rating problems. The case was mentioned to-day that tenants who have left houses which are not fit for habitation may have been allowed to leave furniture in the houses, keep the key and to go back, perhaps to get things or to see how the furniture is going on. It was suggested that rates should not be charged merely because there was furniture in the house. We have suggested to the local authorities that, where houses are not habitable and rent is not paid, rates should also not be levied. The rating authorities have the final answer on this matter.

Mr. Logan: Is the hon. Lady aware that special arrangements have been made in regard to loss of rates in the City of London? If the local authorities come to an agreement on the matter, does she intend that the Treasury shall make a grant on the same lines for loss of rates to the various cities?

Miss Horsbrugh: May I remind the hon. Member that an arrangement was come to with other local authorities long before the arrangement with the City of London? I have answered Questions in the House on the subject, and it has been laid down that, if a local authority cannot carry on its essential services without putting up its rates to a great extent, it should apply to the Ministry of Health, and that these appeals will be examined. It has been done over and over again, long before the arrangement with the City of London.

Mr. Logan: I am anxious about the City of Liverpool. The matter affects us very greatly. If an application were to be made, could we take it that it would receive consideration and that we should get a grant?

Miss Horsbrugh: The hon. Member can certainly take it that the matter would receive consideration. If, because of difficulty experienced in war-time, not only on account of damage, but because of evacuation and other matters, the essential services of any local authority cannot be carried on without an increase of rates to a certain extent, the authority should certainly apply to us.

Mr. Logan: We could certainly make out a case.

Miss Horsbrugh: You make out a case, and you will get the money.

Mr. Silkin: In the same way as the hon. Lady suggests that rates should not be paid, would she agree that the Schedule A tax should also not be paid?

Miss Horsbrugh: I have given the answer about the rating authority, and I answered the question a little time ago on the subject of Schedule A. I referred the questioner to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think we might keep to the actual facts of rents and housing problems in discussing the Bill. We can keep the matter much clearer. Another point


raised by hon. Members was a complaint about legislation by reference and a desire to have more consolidation. The Bill should not give much ground for that complaint by hon. Members. Legislation of this emergency sort is of a rather different character. If hon. Members will turn to the Schedule they will see it set out in full how Section 15 of the principal Act is modified. That was put in so that hon. Members would not have much difficulty. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw said that the ground lessee was only half protected. I think he will agree that we have gone half way to assist in this matter. We are glad that the Bill has been welcomed, because it is an attempt to deal with a very difficult problem. I can assure the House that the points which hon. Members have raised will be examined very carefully by my right hon. and learned Friend before the Committee stage.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day.—[Sir James Edmondson.]

Orders of the Day — TEMPORARY MIGRATION OF CHILDREN (GUARDIANSHIP) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Shakespeare): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In asking the House to assent to the Second Reading of this Bill, I am fulfilling a promise made last year that His Majesty's Government would present to Parliament, for its approval, a Bill to assist the authorities in Canada and the United States in discharging their task of caring for the children who have been sent there during the war period. Hon. Members will see that there are Amendments which have been passed in another place, and owing to war-time economy I am afraid they have not been incorporated into the text of the Bill. They are, however, mainly drafting Amendments, the only one of any substance being the last one, to which I will refer in the course of my speech, so I think it will be convenient if one assumes that the Amendments on

the separate Paper are already incorporated in the Bill as originally printed.
Hon. Members will wish to have a background for this Bill. It will be remembered that the Children's Overseas Reception Scheme started towards the end of June last year, and that some 3,500 children were sent overseas to the four Dominions and to the United States of America. If the House would like to know the exact numbers sent to each Dominion, 1,530 were sent to Canada, 577 to Australia, 202 to New Zealand and 353 to the Union of South Africa. It was our intention at the time to accept the equally generous offers which came to us through the United States Government on behalf of American families, and to operate a similar scheme of sending children to the United States. In point of fact, hon. Members will remember that the official despatch of children to America never took place. By the time the difficulties had been overcome and proper machinery had been devised, the evacuation of children overseas was suspended altogether. Nevertheless, in anticipation of a scheme coming into operation, and in conjunction with the American Embassy here, I had appointed a strong Committee, consisting of prominent Americans in this country under the chairmanship of Mr. Lawrence Tweedy, President of the American Chamber of Commerce in London and associated with every cause that is helping us in our war effort. They set up their own organisation, known as the American Committee in London, and unofficially—I want to emphasise that word—unofficially despatched some 838 children to the United States of America under schemes, for the most part financed by American firms with branches in this country or by cities or associations which had special links with this country. As I said, it was not an official scheme, but the American Committee in London worked very closely with the Children's Overseas Reception Board, and no words of mine can express the gratitude of the Government both to them and their sponsors in the United States and to the kindly foster-parents in the United States who have provided homes for our children.
Now I come to the reason for this Bill. Ever since the initiation of this scheme certain technical difficulties have arisen in the receiving countries which this Bill


seeks to remove. Hon. Members will appreciate how difficult it is to take decisions in the case of the illness of a child or of the removal of a child from one home to another, as is sometimes advisable, when the consent of the parents is so often necessary. The consent of the parents who may be 3,000 miles away cannot be promptly obtained, and often one parent is in the Fighting Services and his consent cannot be obtained for months. Therefore, from the very start of the scheme, as soon as the children arrived and settled in the United States or Canada, it was impressed upon us that it was essential to have in the reception country a legally appointed guardian who could authorise the authorities responsible for the welfare of the children to act on his behalf, and who could give legal sanction to the steps those authorities deemed it necessary to take in the interests of the children. To give the simplest case, in many Provinces in Canada and in some States in the United States, a surgeon could not operate on a child for appendicitis unless he had the consent of the parent or guardian, without laying himself open to an action for assault.

Mr. Logan (Liverpool, Scotland Division): What would they do if there were no parents or guardians?

Mr. Shakespeare: That is the trouble. That is why we wanted some authority who could act in the place of the parents. These difficulties have arisen in all the Dominions, but Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa have dealt with them in their own way and have in fact appointed a Minister of State to be the guardian of the guest children who are there during the war, but owing to the constitutional position and the number of Provinces and States in Canada and the United States of America, it was not possible to follow that course. Therefore, this Bill is designed to meet the special difficulties that have arisen in the United States and Canada. I believe the Bill will be entirely non-controversial, and, as I explained, it has passed all its stages in another place. As it involves a rather novel principle, the House will no doubt wish for a short explanation of the Bill.
In Clause 1 power is given to the Secretary of State to appoint a legal guardian in any country in respect of a child who

is in that country without its parents and who has been sent there during the period of the war. Application must be made by authorities, societies or persons desiring such a guardian to be appointed. By an Amendment accepted in another place this power may be exercised in respect of a small number of children who were left by their parents in the United States or in Canada before the war began, and they are included. The appointment of a guardian can be exercised in respect of those children who were there before the war started in the same way as it is to be exercised in respect of children who have been sent out during the war period.

Mr. Logan: Does that guardianship carry with it the same responsibility as guardianship in this country, for action to be taken under the Common Law in the event of neglect of the children?

Mr. Shakespeare: If my hon. Friend will let me continue, I will deal with that point in a moment. In future, the consent of the parents to the appointment of a guardian for any children sent overseas will be necessary, but in respect of the children who are now there the assent of the parents is assumed. This is wholly in the interests of the children, and it will enable the welfare authorities to function as they would desire. There is this safeguard, that Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 provides that if any parent objects to the appointment of a guardian, he may ask the Secretary of State to revoke the appointment, and the Secretary of State must do so as soon as he is satisfied that proper arrangements have been made for the care of the child. That is a complete safeguard.

Mr. Logan: Does that presume that the parents are going to know the guardians all the time?

Mr. Shakespeare: I will take up that point in a moment. I do not suppose the parents will object to this Bill, since it is devised entirely to promote the welfare of the children; but I must say, frankly, that I have been advised by the United States Committee in Washington that if the power of revocation is exercised, they will disclaim all responsibility for the child. The Bill is a war-time Measure. By Sub-section (4) of Clause 1, it applies to any child who has not attained the age of 16 at the time of being sent out of


the United Kingdom. The transfer of responsibility from the parents to a duly-appointed guardian could be proposed only in war-time, and where special circumstances require it owing to the absence of the parents. It would clearly be wrong for the State to interfere with the responsibility of parents, even in war-time, where that responsibility could in fact be exercised. Where it cannot be exercised, owing to the absence of the parents, we arc not undermining parental responsibility; we are, in fact, stressing the importance of it, and reinforcing it by appointing someone to exercise that responsibility overseas.
It will be noted that, under Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, the guardian so appointed may authorise such authorities, societies or persons as he considers suitable to act on his behalf. Let me explain that. In Canada, the duty of child welfare is the function of the Provincial Legislatures, and in each Province there is a strong welfare society appointed for the purpose. In the United States, the United States Committee, with Mrs. Roosevelt as its honorary president, Mr. Marshall Field as chairman, and Mr. Eric Biddle as executive director, have been specially constituted and charged with the duty of looking after the guest children sent there during the war. The United States Committee has adopted the rules of the Children's Bureau, which, as the House knows, is a department of the United States Ministry of Labour, which lays down the conditions under which child welfare is carried out, and particularly the conditions under which hospitality may be offered to guest children. These rules have been framed as a result of long experience, gained in the field of child welfare, and are concerned with the moral, spiritual, and physical welfare of the children. For instance, a guest child can be housed only in a home of its own religious faith. That will be greatly appreciated by many Members. Both in Canada and in the United States there are most careful arrangements for ensuring the suitability of these homes. They are selected by representatives of the welfare societies. There are frequent visits and inspections, and reports are made from time to time on the welfare of each child, its educational progress, its health, and all other matters.
All this prevision and planning and close attention to detail by these competent

bodies has resulted, I think, in the triumphant success of this form of temporary migration. I am one of those who firmly hope that this undoubted success will lead, when the war is over, to the Dominion Governments and ourselves seeking to continue and develop it. Children are adaptable animals and the process of careful selection, which is a central feature of the Children's Overseas Reception Scheme, has reduced to a minimum the risk of failure. I am assured on all sides that the character, bearing, and conduct of our children have made a profound impression in the countries of their reception. As for the children themselves, their educational processes are being developed as only travel and experience,in new, lands can develop them, and I understand that their health and physique have been marvellously improved.
Let me say one word about the machinery of the Bill. It is our intention to appoint the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Canada, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald), as the duly-appointed guardian of our children in Canada—and, as he is a bachelor, I am sure that he will perform that task very well. That is how we are dealing with the 1,530 children officially sent by my board to Canada. As regards the United States, it is our intention to appoint Lord Halifax, our Ambassador in Washington, as the guardian for the children semi-officially sent out through the work of the American Committee in London, with the blessing of the Children's Overseas Reception Board. Both our High Commissioner in Canada and our Ambassador in the United States will authorise respectively the welfare societies in Canada and the United States Committee in Washington to act on their behalf.

Mr. Leach: Does that mean that they will be able to delegate their duties to private persons in those countries, and rid themselves of guardianship responsibilities?

Mr. Logan: Does it mean that they will be godfathers without having to give any pennies to the children?

Mr. Shakespeare: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) has emphasised that


point. The task of looking after those children in Canada and the United States will remain with the people who are now so devotedly carrying it out. It is not the intention that the legally-appointed guardian should interfere with their work. But he will, by virtue of the fact that he is the sole legal guardian, be able to ask these authorities to act on his behalf, and to give legal sanction to all the steps deemed necessary by them in the interests of the children. I understand that under Canadian and United States law, the question of guardianship of a child is governed by the law of the country where the child is domiciled. Therefore, a person who has been appointed guardian under English law in respect of a child domiciled overseas will be recognised by Canadian and United States courts as legal guardian.

Mr. Logan: Will the guardian be compelled to live in the country where the children are living?

Mr. Shakespeare: I do not think that any compulsion comes in, but naturally, as we appoint our Ambassador to the United States, the assumption is that he will live in the United States.

Sir Percy Harris (Bethnal Green, South-West): If the right hon. Gentleman who is our Ambassador came over for some special purpose or on leave, would there not be some arrangement for a substitute in that case?

Mr. Shakespeare: In a case like that, I have no doubt the Secretary of State would appoint somebody to act as legally appointed guardian during his absence. For example, in Canada we have a Children's Commissioner who travels about and reports on the welfare of the 1,530 children. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty had to be away for a long time, the Secretary of State would appoint a deputy.

Mr. Logan: This raises a very important point. Could a person appointed as a guardian delegate his authority to somebody else?

Mr. Shakespeare: A legally appointed guardian cannot divest himself of his legal responsibility, but he can ask somebody to act on his behalf. If I sent my child to school I could ask the headmaster

to look after the child while there, but I could always interfere and could say that this or that should be done. The authorities in Canada and the United States Committee in America are discharging their task with such devotion and great care that I do not suppose for a moment that a legally appointed guardian would wish to interfere. A legally appointed guardian, as I have pointed out, can ask these authorities to act on his behalf, but he cannot divest himself of his responsibility.

Mr. Logan: Who would take responsibility if an operation were required to be performed? Supposing a child, in respect of whom permission had been given to operate by a person acting as guardian in the absence of the officially appointed guardian, died as a result of the operation, and the officially appointed guardian took exception to what had been done, whose would be the responsibility?

Mr. Shakespeare: I do not think that it would be as difficult as all that, and no more would happen than happens now, except in this respect. Take the case of Canada. At the present time the welfare societies in the Provinces are being consulted from day to day on all sorts of cases, and they are giving their decisions. Perhaps in the case of a desperate operation it might be a question of hours, and the doctor performing the operation takes a great risk. You cannot operate on such a child unless you get the consent of the parents or the guardian, who may be 3,000 miles away. The presence of our High Commissioner in Canada would mean, in a case like that, that instant touch would be established by telephone, if necessary. The High Commissioner in Canada will ask the welfare societies to act on his behalf, and any steps which they think necessary in the interests of a child or to save its life will have his legal sanction.
Finally, I wish to say that I have been associated with the Children's Overseas Reception Scheme since its inception, and I cannot deal with a Bill which affects the welfare of my children without paying a very warm tribute to the people of Canada and the United States of America for the generous thought which prompted these offers of hospitality and for the lavish care which has been bestowed upon our children.

Mr. George Griffiths: What about Australia and New Zealand?

Mr. Shakespeare: I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that point, and I will deal with it almost immediately. My Board and I are in constant touch with our representatives in Canada and the United States, with the welfare societies and the foster-parents. There is continuous communication between foster-parents overseas and parents in this country. The House will be interested to know that one of the most gratifying features of our scheme is the close friendships that are being formed by correspondence between the parents in this country, who are most grateful, and the foster-parents overseas, who are treating these guest children as members of their own family. Let it be remembered that the Government of Canada and of the United States and indeed of all the Dominions, have refused to accept any payment in respect of these children, and the foster-parents are giving homes to these children without any recompense whatever. They assure us that it: is a privilege to care for the children of parents from the devastated areas of this country and to relieve them of anxiety which they might otherwise feel.
If I may speak as a parent, although the possession of children is a great joy, it is also a great responsibility, but it is a responsibility that parents naturally discharge in respect of their own children, but different considerations arise in respect of the children of other people. How deep then is our sense of obligation to these warm-hearted families who have given sanctuary in their own homes to the children of strangers and are bringing them up as their own children. My hon. Friend opposite has asked about the other Dominions. I do not know whether he was present at the start of my speech, but 1 pointed out that, although this would apply to every Dominion or wherever guest children are now situated, there is no desire on the part of other Dominions to do this, because they have already appointed one Minister as sole guardian of the children in these Dominions. With this explanation, I submit the Bill to the House, confident that it will be generally approved, for it is in the interests of our children overseas, and, as I have pointed out, discharges what is

almost a debt of honour to those who have them in their charge.

Mr. Garro Jones: It is, perhaps, not unnatural that a Bill which purports to place other persons in loco parentis of our own children should arouse in some quarters jealous susceptibilities; at the same time everybody will recognise that this is a commonsense Measure. We are living in war-time, and we have become accustomed in this country to perhaps one of the most bitter features of war deprivations, namely, the separation of children from their parents. Those children who have been so far separated from their parents as to have moved to other countries are, as the hon. Gentleman has just explained, in good hands. I have given this Bill the most careful perusal of which I am capable, and I must say that every possible safeguard has been introduced in it to prevent any form of abuse whatever. Indeed, I am not at all sure that statutory safeguards were necessary, because we all know that these children will be treated in the countries to which they have gone as if they were the own children of those who have adopted them. Speaking for a few hon. Members who sit here, I would like to identify myself with the Under-Secretary in what he said about the gratitude which we feel in all parts of the House for the kindness and consideration which are being given to those children, both by the American Society and by those responsible in the Dominions to which they have been sent.

Sir P. Harris: I want to intervene for only a few moments to add my blessing to this Bill. Obviously, it will have a rapid passage through the House. I am happy to see here the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information. I am glad that he has been present during this particular discussion, because I think it would be well to take this opportunity to convey, through whatever channels are available, the proceedings of this particular Debate to Canada and the United States of America and, I might add, to the Dominions of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. It is only by the constitutions of these various Dominions that they do not come inside the provisions of this Measure, and it might lead to a wrong impression if our genuine, sincere praise for the action of Canada and America was


thought not to apply equally to those Dominions which are outside the provisions of the Bill. As it happens, the number of children concerned is comparatively small, but the children are a symbol. The number would have been much larger had it not been for the difficulty of convoying children across dangerous seas, but it is something more than a symbol at a time like this to know that the English-speaking world is at one with us in this fight and in sympathy with the problem of the care of our children.

Mr. Logan: I asked a few questions a short time ago because the question of guardianship has been a debatable point in the House of Commons and the subject-matter of discussions in city councils. My anxiety was not because I had any doubt about the way in which the matter would be handled on the other side of the oceans or of the hospitality that would be extended; it was as to what kind of system would be brought into operation to see that the children who left their homes would get into the hands of the right persons. I am fully convinced that Lord Halifax would not be asked to wash every child's face or to take it out, so that the question of deputising certainly entered into the matter. I take it that a guardian would be appointed.
I was gratified to hear the question which has been raised in Liverpool, among other places—the question of a child's faith. Every child has its right to the family life, traditions and religion of the home, and whatever the religion of the child may be it must be protected. We must give to the child in its new land the right which it has enjoyed in its own home. No home, unless it has a spiritual faith, can truly be called a home. In promoting good fellowship this Bill is a step in the right direction. Many people have been afraid to send their children overseas, but they can have no fear whatever that the House of Commons, through its responsible Minister, has done all that it is possible to do. The hospitality that has been offered to our children is a hospitality which, in a time of crisis like this, should be accepted with the most grateful thanks to those who have offered it.

Mr. Leach: I would like to associate myself with the warm commendations which have been

offered on this Bill by the Members who have already spoken. Through this Bill we are dealing with two of the most hospitable parts of the world, and there can be no doubt of the immense feeling of gratitude and pleasure which has run through the whole of this country, following the reception given to our children in Canada and America since they arrived there. They have been having the time of their lives, and their health has undoubtedly benefited through the hospitality that has been so freely granted to them.
I understood from the Under-Secretary that the guardian appointed in each country will not be able to divest himself of the legal authority which his new job gives to him. He certainly will have to depute some part of the extraneous work involved in guardianship to somebody else, and that is where I would like to offer one or two observations. For instance, a child may get into a home where people, hospitable though they may be, nevertheless, have ideas. They may want to circumcise him, cut out his tonsils, vaccinate him or innoculate him when there is no question of the child being in any physical danger and in need of the spurious operations which seem to be so fashionable in some parts of the world.
What will the guardian who is to be appointed do when representations of that character are made to him: I imagine it would be possible for Lord Halifax or the High Commissioner in Canada to get into consultation in this country with the parents concerned. Are they likely to do so? May we have an understanding about that? My hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) has referred to the safeguards which undoubtedly this arrangement supplies in the case of those parents who are keen about religious matters and wish to preserve the atmosphere in which their children have been brought up. I wish I could be equally satisfied with the Bill in respect of the matters which I have raised, and I should be pleased to receive that satisfaction. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give it.

Sir Patrick Harmon: I wish to congratulate the Minister on the introduction of this Bill and to say how grateful the House must be


for the care which he has taken and the provision he has made for safeguarding the material and spiritual sides of the lives of these children in the countries which have accepted them as guests. I am particularly gratified with the provision that has been made to safeguard the religion of these children in the homes in which they have been received. I am one of those who believe that after the war there must be a stronger spiritual infusion into the whole of our national life as a basis for the future society of this country. Therefore, it is gratifying to see that the spiritual outlook of the children who have been sent overseas, and whose departure from their homes must have given grave anxiety to their parents, is being preserved under this Bill. I am confident that Lord Halifax in the United States and the High Commissioner in Canada will see that that point of view is constantly maintained.
I am grateful for the Bill. In looking back to the Debates in the House over a great many years, I feel that we can hardly say that any speech has given more satisfaction to many of us than that in which the Minister presented his case to the House in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. My hon. Friend has done admirable work. I do not think we have sufficiently appreciated the immense task which he had to discharge when the movement of these children overseas was first inaugurated. I should like to express gratitude, on my own behalf and on behalf of a great many organisations with which I am associated, for the way in which the Minister has handled this great social question and the manner in which he has provided for the safeguarding of these children overseas.

Mr. Mathers: The approval of this Bill is so great that I am certain it will move very rapidly to the Statute Book. I have no wish to delay that progress, but I want to say that I cordially endorse all the expressions of gratitude to those people in Canada and the United States who are at present acting as foster parents to these children. It is a very great thing indeed that that spirit has been called forth. I believe that some of the big things that have been done under the stress of war will be carried over to the times of peace. I agree heartily with the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) that one of the

great things for which we have to hope, and which we must endeavour to achieve, in this country and the world after the war is a proper evaluation of things. We must correct our values and put right in the forefront of our lives and the lives of countries and of the world, the spiritual values which the war demonstrates to have been neglected in days gone by. The question which I wish to put to the Undersecretary of State is whether the position of Scottish children has been properly understood and envisaged in the framing of this Bill. We all know that Scottish children are in a different position legally from children South of the Border. An English child is an infant until 21 years of age, whereas Scottish children have the right from the early ages of 12 and 14 in the case of boys and girls respectively to decide their own domicile. I hope that point has been kept in view, but I think it will be well to have an assurance that, so far as the legal position is concerned, Scottish children will not in any way be prejudicially affected by the passing of this Measure.

Mr. Hubert Beaumont: The value of this Bill lies not only in its exact purpose, but also in the fact that it affords this House an opportunity of expressing its warmhearted and sincere appreciation for the generosity and friendliness accorded to the children who have gone not only to Canada and the United States, but also to South Africa, New Zealand and Australia. It is unfortunate that circumstances prevented this scheme being developed to its fullest extent. It is a scheme which was wisely conceived and, I believe, excellently planned, a scheme which, if carried through, would have afforded safety and security to many hundreds of thousands of children from this country, who have been exposed to the blitzing of many of our cities and towns. It was unfortunate that circumstances made it unwise to send more children abroad, because we realise that not only are these children who are being sent to America, Canada and other countries being afforded a degree of safety and security, but furthermore the scheme will enable them to make associations which they will carry right through their lives, and which will be of profound importance in the future.
I sincerely hope the wish expressed in the speech of the Minister, that the con-


tacts between our parts of the Empire and this country may be continued when peace comes, may be truly carried out. It is pretty certain that the influence which these children bring to the countries to which they have gone will spread back to this country.
I wish to put a question to the Undersecretary. I understood him to say that this Bill applies to children under 16 years of age when sent overseas. These children, in many cases, have been sent overseas for 12 months and more, and some will be approaching the age when they would normally enter occupations and give up their scholastic careers. The question I wish to ask is whether the provisions of this Bill give powers, in any way, to the guardians to determine the kind of occupations which these children shall enter? I understood the provisions laid down that the children shall be accorded the same scholastic treatment as is common in the district in which they were registered. That will possibly presuppose leaving school at 15 or 16, and maybe earlier, and in that case who is to determine the nature of the occupations they shall follow?
Are parents consulted and, if they are, and they say they leave it to you, will it be the people with whom the children are residing or the society, if any, under whose auspices the child has been placed in that house, or will it be the guardian invested with power by this Bill? It may be a very important point for the children concerned. I only wish to re-emphasise how very grateful we are for the generosity, friendliness, kindliness and good will which have been exhibited to our children who have gone overseas, and perhaps the very act of despatching them may be one of the very few good things which will emerge from the war.

Mr. Shakespeare: As one who was for four years associated with the Ministry of Health, and must have got through the best part of two or three dozen Bills, all controversial, it is a delightful sensation to be associated with a Bill which only results in bouquets being thrown at one. I should like to thank the House for its very generous and kindly appreciation of this very humble Measure. The hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) was more than kind. I am sure the Children's Overseas Reception Board will

greatly appreciate his remarks. In my political life it is one of the most interesting things that I have done to be associated with the movement for sending children overseas to safety, and it was a great disappointment to me that this very fine movement had to stop, a profound disappointment to the parents, and, I think, to the Dominions. We could have sent a quarter of a million children. I believe, with the hon. Member who spoke last, that it is one of the best things that will come out of the war, because the success has been so great, the foster-parents in the Dominions have grown so fond of the children, that they will insist on having them in the Dominions, and it may well be that they will take steps to see that their parents come out, if they wish, to join them. So one has a vista of a really acceptable and well-balanced migration scheme at last arising as a by-product out of the war. I am very grateful to the House for taking the same view, and I am sure everything that has been said will be greatly appreciated by our Board.
Three further points arose. The hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) asked what happened to a child when the foster-parents wished to indulge in some rash experiment or some practice which might not be acceptable to the parents in this country. Whether you have a legal guardian in the country or not, you might theoretically get an exceptional case where the foster-parents might do something so quickly that no machinery devised could stop them. Ever since we have administered the scheme there have been very careful control and co-operation going on day by day concerning the children, but I have never come across a case where that has arisen. There has been no complaint by parents of the powers of foster-parents being exercised in this way. There is only one case which comes within the category which my hon. Friend referred to, and that was a case where the foster-parents objected to vaccination, and the objection was upheld. In all circumstances which affect the life of a child, whether it is an operation, whether it is educational—a change of school or going on to a secondary school—or whether it is the choice of occupation, we have made it a practice that the consent of the parents in this country should be obtained. I exclude, of course, the case of an urgent decision


where life and death are at stake. Where it is possible to consult parents in regard to a child attending school or a choice of occupation, I should consider it reprehensible if we did not get in touch with the parents in this country. We frequently consult parents here as to the occupation they wish their son to follow, and parents sometimes say that they will leave it to the authorities on the spot. I am amazed at the tremendous care that is being exercised by the welfare authorities in Canada and by the United States Committee. In the United States the science of child welfare is more highly advanced than it is in this country, and I am amazed at the number of questions, psychological and otherwise, that come up when an occupation for a child is considered. Therefore, my hon. Friend need have no anxiety on that score.
Another point was raised, and I hope I shall not conclude on a controversial note by my answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) asked about the position of a Scottish child, because the law of guardianship in Scotland is different from that in England. I understand that it is more comprehensive in Scotland than it is in England. We took the advice of the Scottish Office and the Lord Advocate on this point, because the United States and Canada were anxious to have one standard of guardianship for the convenience of their courts. It would be difficult for them to have the standard of guardianship in England, the standard in Scotland and the standard in some other part of the Empire, because the United States courts would have to make elaborate inquiries as to what the law of guardianship was. Therefore, Scotland generously accepted a lower standard of guardianship—the English standard—and under the Bill, when questions of difficulty come up, the courts will settle them according to the English law. It will greatly simplify the procedure, and it is acceptable to the Scottish Office. I should like again to thank the House for their reception of the Bill and to express the hope that we shall pass it through all its stages at the earliest opportunity, because it will be greatly welcomed in the United States and Canada.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day. —[Major Dugdale.]

Orders of the Day — RATING (WAR DAMAGE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I hope that the Bill will commend itself in all parts of the House. It is a Bill with only one operative Clause, the object of which is to give local authorities in Scotland a discretionary power to remit rates on property which has been wholly or to a substantial extent rendered uninhabitable by enemy action. At present local authorities in Scotland can in general remit rates only on the ground of poverty or inability to pay. Unless, therefore, an owner or occupier is without resources, he continues to be liable for rates until the new Valuation Roll is made up, even though the property has been destroyed or its value wholly or to a large extent has disappeared as a result of bombing.
This, I submit, is clearly inequitable. In England and Wales the law is different from what it is in Scotland. In England and Wales the Minister of Health has circularised rating authorities advising that where as a result of enemy action property has been rendered uninhabitable for a period of more than a week an appropriate remission of rates might properly be given. It also appears that in England it is open to the occupier of a property which, although not made wholly uninhabitable, has suffered substantial damage, to secure a reduction in valuation, which becomes retrospective to the date on which the damage occurred. Action on similar lines in Scotland under the existing rating valuation law would be incompetent and the Bill which I am now moving will enable the position in Scotland to be brought substantially into line with the existing position in England and Wales.

Mr. Buchanan: Will it date back?

Mr. Westwood: Yes. The Bill will empower rating authorities to grant such relief as they think just and equitable in


all cases where lands and heritages have become wholly or substantially incapable of beneficial occupation as the result of war damage. There may be cases where parts of premises have been damaged but where the remainder is still capable of beneficial occupation, and we have felt it right to make provision for those cases. As a corollary to this provision for the partially-destroyed building the Bill further provides that the rating authority, when deciding what relief will be given, shall have regard to the extent to which the lands and heritages have become incapable of beneficial occupation as well as to the period during which they are incapable. We have also felt it right to provide that this relief may be given retrospectively. This will enable local authorities to grant relief for damage which has occurred before the Bill becomes law. Provision has accordingly been included to make it clear that relief may be given by way of repayment of rates that have already been paid as well as by the reduction of assessments. From consultations which have been held with representatives of the three Local Authority Associations in Scotland, I have reason to believe that the Bill will be generally acceptable to local authorities in Scotland, and I beg to move that it be now read a Second time.

Mr. Mathers: I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland may be certain that his hope in respect of this Bill that it will be generally approved by the House is one that will be fully realised. We have here an indication of the fact that Scotland has a separate legal system and that that is being carefully looked after by those who are in control of Scottish affairs in this House. The Minister has indicated that this Bill can have retrospective effect. I feel inclined to say on that point that I hope it will only have retrospective effect, that it will refer only to past war damage and that no more damage may occur in Scotland. Perhaps that is too much to hope for during the period of the war; but I am certain that what is being provided for here will be generally welcomed and that this Bill will commend itself to every section of the House.

Mr. Buchanan: May I raise one point? The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has explained the Bill very clearly. It is

a short Bill, but its shortness did not in any way affect the clarity of his exposition. The Bill obviously applies to the ordinary tenement house where rent and rates are not payable together. The hon. Gentleman is aware that, in the case of certain houses—I speak from memory—of a rent of about £24 or £25, the rent comes to about £19 19s. The increase of rent raises this sum to about £24. Up to that sum, in the greater part of Scotland, rent is not payable with rates, while over that sum rent and rates are combined. I take it that the local authority have the right to say, in respect of houses over the ordinary figure of £24 or £25, "We will not ask for all the rates which are due, because, during the period in question, your house; was not able to be occupied by you. We therefore remit a portion of the rates." I take it that the amount to be remitted will be entirely for the local authority to decide.
The other point relates to cases where rates are paid with rent and where the house factor, as we call this official in the West of Scotland, is agent for the local authority for the collection of rates. In some cases, the factor collects rates for the local authority and then hands them over to the person. The system is a little complicated, as the hon. Gentleman is aware. Where the tenant is in arrear, the factor or the house agent sues the tenant in court, not merely for the rent owed by that person, but for the rates as well. The Under-Secretary should make sure that the mere collection of rates by the house factor or agent does not prevent the tenant from getting his or her share of the remittance that may be granted by the local authority.
I also want to raise another question. It does not quite come in here, but I would ask the Secretary of State to look at the general subject of rent, as payable in Scotland. A system has grown up to which I have always been strongly opposed, and it is becoming more prevalent, in the West of Scotland particularly, by which rent is paid in advance. The system common in the big cities is that a tenant or occupier of a house pays a quarter's rent in advance. Possibly, on the day after he has paid, the house, which he has not yet occupied, is blown to pieces. The would-be tenant may be killed, yet he has paid that quarter's rent for a house which has ceased to exist.


The whole question of rent payment in Scotland should be taken into account. I understand that the position has been referred to in the courts, and it is a deplorable situation. In Glasgow there is a number of sheriff-substitutes, who administer the small debt courts where these actions are taken. You may have one sheriff stating the law differently from others. In my view the Common Law of Scotland is quite clear—and I believe the best lawyers follow this interpretation —in showing that rent is not payable unless a house is occupiable or is certified by a local authority as capable of being occupied by the tenant. If that is the case, rates ought to be exempt, and I trust that the Under-Secretary will make it clear that the tenant who pays rates with his rent is entitled to at least the same exemption, or at least to exemption from rates during the period when his house may be unfit for occupation by him

Mr. Westwood: I have no complaint whatever to make as to the way in which this Bill has been received. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) have both made it perfectly clear that they are in agreement with the principle of the Bill which I have sought to introduce to-day. First of all, I want to make it clear that it is retrospective in its effect, so that where people have been bombed out the local authority, with its knowledge of the facts, is enabled—and again I want to emphasise the fact that it is an enabling Bill—to deal with the applications on their merits. I am perfectly sure that the local authorities, with their knowledge of our rent and rating system in Scotland, will keep in mind the fact that there are two systems, one in which the tenant pays the rates and the other in which the landlord collects the rates along with the rent from the tenant. In a case of that kind I am sure that where the local authority agrees to grant remission of rates it will not agree that the landlord shall claim not only his own share but the tenant's share in connection with any remissions.
A very important point was raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals in connection with rents, but it would be altogether out of order to deal with rent problems under the Title of this Bill, which is the Rating (War Damage) (Scotland) Bill. Consequently, so far as the Bill is con-

cerned, we can deal only with the problem of the remission of rates. But the points that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals will be taken into consideration in view of the fact that, when the Bill—the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) (Amendment) Bill—which has already been considered by the House to-day becomes law, the question of introducing Scottish legislation relating to rent adjustments when property is damaged will be urgently considered so far as the Scottish Office is concerned and so far as the Secretary of State and myself are responsible for introducing that legislation. The points that have been raised in regard to the problems of rent will receive consideration between now and the introduction of that Bill.

Mr. Buchanan: In the meantime there is this urgent problem, namely, that a number of people have been refused or have been unable to get the use of a house —quite properly; it is no criticism of those responsible, for such a decision may have been taken because the house is dangerous—but in the meantime those people are being asked to pay rent which they cannot pay, and I would like the Undersecretary to ask those who are entrusted with collecting rents at least to take no action in the courts until the new Bill is introduced and the law made clear on the matter.

Mr. Westwood: I shall certainly be prepared to make an appeal on those lines, because it seems a reasonable appeal to make, particularly in view of the fact that legislation is pending for the purpose of dealing with that particular problem. I trust that with these explanations the House will now be prepared to give a Second Reading to this Bill.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day. —[Major Dugdale.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Ordered,
That Mr. Robert Morrison be discharged from the Select Committee on National Expenditure and that Mr. Kirby be added to the Committee." —[Major Dugdale.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." —[Major Dugdale.]

Captain Cunningham-Reid (Maryle-bone): In Europe we now find ourselves in the position of having many national anthems, and not many countries. How different things might have been if our mechanised forces and our propaganda had been better. These two dissimilar companions go hand in hand to victory. Our mechanical shortcomings are obvious, and are being quickly adjusted; our shortcomings as to propaganda, being of necessity obscure, leave public opinion unaroused, and, therefore, very little is done about it. If I may say so, it is the same, to some extent, in this House. Ministers often complain that matters ought to be raised in private, but the fact remains that the very same Ministers do not take any effective notice until the matter becomes public. The effects of propaganda are somewhat intangible. It is easier to appraise from afar the effects of armed forces than it is of propaganda. For that reason, I have purposely visited several foreign countries during this war. I have made a special study of this subject, and I have conveyed my observations and my recommendations to the powers-that-be. I have no hesitation in saying that unless our information to other countries improves, the outcome of this war will be tragic. I, like may others, was amazed at a passage in one of the earlier broadcasts about Hess. It said:
The vast apparatus of the Third Reich depended on no personality, not even the Fuehrer himself, for survival, but on its overwhelming military force.
Why was it necessary gratuitously to suggest to the world that Nazism would survive because of its overwhelming military force? Alternatively, it might be read into that particular passage that Hess was of no particular importance. I could give example after example, not only of futile propaganda, but of occasions when the necessity for propaganda has been sticking out a mile and none has been forthcoming. Mr. Hunt, the famous New York lawyer, said in a recent article in the "Daily Telegraph":
We Americans ought to know more. And you should tell us more specifically of what you are doing. Of course, I am not referring to any military secrets. You may recall that in

the United States certain unscrupulous politicians and writers, who were fighting Hitler's battle to keep us out of the war, made several false statements about Canada's war effort. Many Americans lacked the information, which they could have used promptly and to good effect, to crush this lying propaganda.
In the last war, the nation's propaganda was controlled by Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Northcliffe; and I think it is agreed that their efforts contributed largely to winning that war. But it has to be recollected that they were both experts on public opinion.
Who are the controllers of the Ministry of Information to-day? I think the House will be interested to hear what I believe is the latest information about that Ministry. It is a fact that one of those controllers did happen to have a life-long experience of public opinion. He was the only one. He has now gone, under circumstances that, I think, ought to be looked into. His place has been taken by a representative of the B.B.C. There are nine controllers of the Ministry of Information, I am led to understand. I have told about one; he represents the B.B.C. Who are the remaining eight, and what are their qualifications? There are three eminent legal gentlemen, K.Cs., and three civil servants from other Departments. Then there is the keeper of the King's pictures, and finally, last but not least, we find the ubiquitous Lord Davidson, who possibly is better known to the House as J. C. C. Davidson, who, it will be remembered, was one of Mr. Baldwin's advisers in his "safety-first" days. It is not the fault of this wondrous collection of controllers that they cannot even start to compete with Goebbels in the subtle and delicate art of propaganda; they just have not had the proper training. One might as well go to one's chiropodist to have one's appendix out. Is there any wonder that the Minister of Information, who, I am very sorry, cannot be present to-day on account of illness, himself publicly complains that the Ministry of Information is run by amateurs? What is preventing him from substituting them by experts? Surely the time has come when the gentlemen should declare and give the players an opportunity of an innings. Goebbels has conscripted—mark you conscripted—all the best publicity experts in Germany for his Ministry. I am baffled by what is going on. The


whole situation at the Ministry of Information is extraordinary. Why cannot we have experts there who really understand public opinion? There are several outstanding examples in this country who would be only too pleased to serve and whose careers have been built up on understanding human nature. The whole matter is mysterious and it sometimes seems that, though Lord Baldwin is safely ensconced at Bewdley, nevertheless the dead hand of Mr. Baldwin hangs over the Ministry of Information.
This Ministry have a lot to answer for in the Balkan tragedy. They certainly cannot afford to lose the American stakes as well. Americans would appreciate it being brought home to them more and more that they had backed the right horse. It would encourage the American public to hurry up and put all they have got upon the British colours instead of dallying and wondering whether they should not hedge a little more on their own horse. The Ministry of Information ought not to relax their efforts for one moment, because the Americans would appreciate our constantly giving confidence to them and informing them how we are continuing to strain every nerve for victory. Remember, there are, and will be, millions in America criticising, and discouraging America from going to war or at war. Our enemies in the United States of America will try to make out among many other things, that the British are now slacking off, or, to use an Americanism "passing the buck."
Unless we are ready with organisations on the spot—and I say organisations and not just one organisation; not just the British Library of Information at New York, which is doing very good work in very difficult circumstances, but any reliable and bona fide organisations which are willing to help us—to counteract such dangerous propaganda in America, one must visualise that the time might come when America, against the will of those who rule that country, might be compelled to leave us in the lurch. Remember that it was the traitors within France that compelled France to leave us in the lurch. I know that at this very moment our American friends take it practically as an insult that we do not take them more into our confidence and that we do not, presumably, think it worth while to give them more facts and information.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Dugdale.]

Captain Cunningham-Reid: They do not appreciate over there—and I know, because only recently I was in America— that it has been the policy of His Majesty's Government, very rightly at that time, that there should be no idea in the minds of the American people that the British were conducting propaganda in their country. But times have changed since then, and we have been slow to take advantage of the fact that conditions have altered very much from the time when that policy was laid down. Two peoples have since found themselves in the same boat, and they have become very good friends. It cannot be suggested that there is such a thing as propaganda as between friends, but words of common sense and encouragement are still very acceptable. A sufficiency of facts and stories of human interest are not forthcoming from the Ministry of Information or, for that matter, from the Foreign Office, to the United States of America.
It was recently pointed out by the "People" that one of America's principal broadcasting corporations—I think it was Columbia—had cut down by half the time it used to devote to broadcasts from its London correspondents. It just could not get sufficient information. It has no difficulty, though, in filling in the gaps from Berlin. Our method of conveying information must be improved. I know it can be done, and, what is more important, I know how the American people would like it to be done, because 1 have discussed this in America with prominent and shrewd Americans who are in close touch with American public opinion. I believe the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of Information has just returned from America, and I also understand that he has been considering all these important matters on the spot. I have no doubt that it will be said that everything is going along nicely. The Parliamentary Secretary may have something to say about that to-day. He may say that my criticisms are unfounded or, failing that, that they are being attended to and give some discreet examples. Whatever


the answer may be, the fact remains— and I know it for a certainty— —that once again we are being too slow, and that our sluggish lack of initiative is not being appreciated—and that is putting it mildly —by our dwindling friends in the United States of America. The Isolationists there, as is only too well known, especially since certain disasters have occurred overseas, are getting stronger and stronger; they are also getting immense campaign funds. Lindbergh is becoming a hero again among millions. America is our last bus. Are we to miss it?

Mr. Granville: There have been a good many Debates on the subject of the Ministry of Information, and I think it is true to say that there has been a good deal of criticism of the Ministry since its inception. My view is that the present set-up of the Ministry has no chance of succeeding in the problem of propaganda against the totalitarian technique. Perhaps, in these and other circumstances, the Minister of Information can be said to have made the best of a bad job. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not here to-day, and I am sure the whole House will wish him a speedy return to full health from his indisposition. When we criticise the Ministry of Information for lack of news, as has been the case in the Greek campaign, the Battle of the Atlantic, and the campaign in North Africa, I think we are apt to forget that the fault may be with the Service Departments, because in the matter of propaganda, it is the Service Departments that release the news which the Ministry of Information make available to the Press and the wireless. Therefore, perhaps there has been some unjust criticism of the Minister of Information from that point of view. Nevertheless, if one regards propaganda as important in this war, I cannot see how the Minister of Information, working against the totalitarian technique with all its vast ramifications, can make a success of his job, with that set-up, in having to deal with the Service Ministers, unless he is himself a Member of the War Cabinet and unless he is given a voice, with the Service Ministers, in those vital decisions as to what is information and what should be made available.
Obviously, there is no propaganda policy. There ought to be a propaganda

policy if we are to use a Ministry of Information at all. The Hess affair illustrates that there is no policy. The Minister of Labour, the Minister without Portfolio and the Secretary of State for Air have made speeches on the matter which have been reported through the columns of the Press and over the radio, but I have never heard a speech from the Minister of Information, or reference to a statement from the Minister of Information or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information, except the statement that was made in the House to-day with regard to the Duke of Hamilton, which was a denial of a report of a statement which had been previously verified by the Ministry of Information. The public is left to draw its own conclusions, and as one Sunday scribe said, "Hess has been treated in this country as a sacred cow." The Ministry of Information have to consider opinion here, in the United States, and, of course, in Germany. I have read in the Press that the best way to deal with the Hess affair is to let it run. I should have imagined that to let it run for a fortnight was not only bad psychology, but bad propaganda. In my view, it is a great chance thrown away, with all the skill of the boomerang thrower, if they do throw boomerangs in Canada. It was a chance to expose to the world the infamy of the whole Nazi machine. It was certainly an opportunity which, in terms of modern propaganda, had to be used soon, because speed was the vital factor in dealing with it.
There is one other aspect of the activities of the Ministry of Information to which I should like to refer. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to state, in his reply, who it is that O.K.s, as the Americans' call it, the various statements which go out from Government Departments, puffs, boosts, call them what you like, which are statements obviously inspired by contact with a spokesman for a Government Department. I suppose I should not be in Order in referring to the case, to-day, in the House of Commons. When we read in the Press that an optimistic statement is going to be made by one of the Ministers, and we read after the Debate something which closely resembles what took place in that Debate, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary who Is responsible for censoring or


dealing with these statements which go into the Press, concerning the activities of various Government Departments.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not quite sure to what the from. Member is referring, but I trust he is not referring in Public Session to what took place in a Secret Debate.

Mr. Granville: I said that I imagined I would not be in Order in referring to it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Then apparently the hon. member promptly proceeded to do so. That is why I got up to warn him.

Mr. Granville: I was dealing in general with the sending-out of puffs and boosts from Government Departments to the public Press, and I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary if he will give the House information as to who it is that passes these statements before they go into the Press, as representing Government policy. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary who is responsible for the reports of Debates given on the B.B.C. What happens is that in the 6 o'clock news we get odd pieces of in-' formation referring to speeches which have been made in a Debate, and then at 9 o'clock the whole thing is dressed up in a new garb behind Ministerial pronunciamentos. I submit that what the country requires is to have Parliament reported. I submit that, in a war in which the country is fighting to defend democracy, it is a right and proper thing that through the B.B.C. accurate reports of Debates in Parliament should be given, and not merely Ministerial pronouncements. I think the public are sick of being given soft soap through the Ministry. When we captured Benghazi it was important, but when the Nazis took Benghazi it was not important. The shell which hit the "Hood" was described in an Admiralty statement as an "unlucky hit." What the public wants is to be told the facts. If you tell the people of this country the plain facts promptly, they will back you through anything in this war, instead of which, they are given uncertainty and contradictions.
Again I ask who it is who is really responsible for sending out these reports and the information which apparently comes out under the guise of the Ministry of Information. Time is brief, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to

give us that answer. In my view, if the Ministry of Information, that much criticised Government Department, is to succeed at all, it ought to have the power, personnel and policy to state the British case to the world. That means using the full potential resources of our films, of the Press and of the wireless. I would back up the hon. Member's appeal. For goodness sake, at this juncture let us get some modern minds with modern ideas inside the Ministry. I believe you will have to reorganise it sooner or later. I believe it can be effectively used as your fourth arm. I believe it can be most effectively used to destroy the rotten propaganda which goes out from the Goebbels machine by day and by night. Obviously, the Parliamentary Secretary cannot reply to all these points, but I think the country and the House of Commons are entitled to know whether this question will be faced and also who, at the moment, is in charge of propaganda and who is in charge of sanctioning the issue of the 6 o'clock news.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Harold Nicolson): I am sure my right hon. Friend will be very much obliged to those who have expressed concern at his absence from the House and hope for his rapid recovery, a hope which I entirely share. The two hon. Members who have spoken have covered a wide field. The hon. and gallant Member for Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) referred to the recent departure of an officer who had had long B.B.C. experience, and who was described as a controller. He was not a controller but a director. He deserved promotion, and he has got it.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: In the Ministry of Information?

Mr. Nicolson: No, abroad. In any case it is perfectly possible to say, if one can define what a publicity expert is—and that would be a very difficult definition—that the officials in charge of the main departments of the Ministry are not necessarily expert in the purely publicity side of propaganda. It might also be mentioned, however, that each one has attained, at an early age, a leading position in the profession which he has chosen. If you take, for instance, legal luminaries, we have three, and it is a very remarkable fact that if you asked any member of the Bar his opinion of those


three individuals, he would say they were the most able people he had ever known. Still, it is invidious, and I do not think it would particularly interest the House to go into great detail on matters of personnel. The personnel is continually changing. Nothing has been more fluid than the succession of individuals, and I trust that that fluidity will continue, because it is necessary constantly to graft into the Ministry new minds and new ideas, and, as the war progresses, and as our relations with countries change, obviously the staff allotted to those particular tasks will also have to be adjusted. The hon. and gallant Member for Marylebone made a remark, which rather startled me, to the effect that to the deficiencies of our foreign propaganda was largely due the Balkan tragedy. Surely he cannot seriously say that.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I said that the Ministry of Information had a lot to answer for in the Balkans.

Mr. Nicolson: We have a great deal to answer for, and we are very proud of it. In spite of the fact that the Germans possessed armoured divisions on the various frontiers of the countries they threatened and intimidated, so excellent was the presentation of our case, so great a conviction did we win of our eventual victory and the righteousness of our cause, that Greece and Yugoslavia came on to our side. So we have a great deal to answer for.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Does that include Turkey?

Mr. Nicolson: A further point upon which the hon. and gallant Member rightly laid stress was the question of America. He has been in America more recently than I have, and his visits to that country, although not as frequent as my own, have been more extensive. Whereas I did not go beyond California, such was his interest in American social reform and in grasping the meaning of the American idea, that he pushed his researches right out into the islands of the Pacific. I am afraid that I never followed him there.

Mr. Granville: Is that a joke or a punch below the belt?

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Will my hon.' Friend care to say why I had to go to the islands of the Pacific?

Mr. Nicolson: I think it was something to do with child welfare.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Exactly; it was on account of the evacuation of children, and I was asked to undertake the mission by the appropriate Department. This gibe is getting cheap.

Mr. Nicolson: I was reminding the House that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has a more recent and wider experience of American conditions than I have. I agree with a good deal of what the hon. and gallant Member said. It is true, and I think that anyone of any experience of the United State will agree, that in the early stages of the war it was absolutely essential that His Majesty's Government should refrain from any possible form of persuasion or of solicitation or of any representation of news such as might be interpreted as propaganda. The hon. and gallant Member knows very well that after the last war a tremendous reaction in American opinion set in and books were published, such as "England expects every American to do his duty," and other books such as that maintaining that America had been tricked into the last war by a network of underground British propaganda and protesting against this elaborate network of propaganda as an attempt at ensnaring the great white soul of America again. Lord Lothian, our Ambassador, all the wiser heads and advisers whom we had in the United States told us with complete conviction that whatever we did we should never seek in any way to influence the opinion of the United States people. That holds good to-day. We must provide the United States people with not only? the facts, but the facts behind the facts. We must give them not only the foreground of the war, but also the background. As the hon. and gallant Member said, we have recently benefited by the visit of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Tree). We are doing a great deal to organise and speed up generally the Press and information services, not merely in Washington and in New York, but in every centre of the United States.

Mr. Ernest Evans: Does that include the American journalists in London?

Mr. Nicolson: I was just coming to that. We are also hoping before long to


provide American newspaper men in London, to whom, incidentally, we owe a very great debt, not only with greater facilities for getting information, not only with greater background stuff, but also, I hope, with the assistance of Mr. Speaker and the willing co-operation of the Press Gallery, with greater facilities in this House, of which they have been lamentably deprived. The hon. Member for the Eye Division of Suffolk (Mr. Granville) also asked certain very pertinent questions. He seemed, to my mind, to reflect a misunderstanding which I think is almost universal in this House and in the country, a belief that there is such a thing now in existence as a compulsory censorship. There is not. The hon. Member asked who passed the statements sent out by Government Departments, who was responsible for censoring communiqués. There is no such censorship. I wish I had time to go further into this point, but I believe there will be opportunity later to do so.

Mr. Granville: Does the hon. Member say that when a statement is to be given out on the six o'clock news no reference is made to the Ministry of Information?

Mr. Nicolson: If it is a Government official statement it is immediately referred to the Department concerned. If it is a matter dealing with Admiralty affairs, it is "O.K'd" by the Admiralty; if a statement on' home security, by the Department of Home Security. It is the Department actually concerned which passes any official communiqué But where we come in, as we do after the event, is to indicate certain errors of taste or errors of judgment, in our opinion, and we do frequently point out to the B.B.C. and Government Departments that the British public are not in the mood to stand optimism or phrases which strike them as evasive or insincere. I think we are gettings things done a great deal better.
The hon. Member for the Eye Division also referred, with power and strength, I thought, to the three great essentials which are needed if the Ministry of Information is really to become an active

Department in the war. He said we must have more power, better personnel, and a policy. I agree with him about the first two. I do not agree for one moment that we have no policy. We have. Our policy is perfectly definite and perfectly consistent, both in aim and method. Both our policy and our methods are the exact opposite of those of Dr. Goebbels. It is not right to compare the activities and actions of the Ministry of Information with the methods of Dr. Goebbels. We are trying to do something quite different. He is trying to gain immediate advantage without any thought whatsoever of the confidence that he may inspire in the future. We are trying in every way—and, goodness gracious, it is difficult enough—every day and every night, to gain the confidence not only of our own people, because that we may hope to obtain, but of the whole world, so that we may establish gradually that credit and that repute, that trustworthiness, that credibility which will not only be of great value to us in time of war but will give us the moral authority when peace comes to play our part, which will be a grave and responsible part, in the reconstruction of the world.

Mr. Garro Jones: There is still time for the hon. Member to answer a question. If he burkes at the word "censorship," who edits the Parliamentary reports?

Mr. Nicolson: That is an important question. My right hon. Friend has had reason to speak about the paucity and thinness of the Parliamentary reports and about the enormous and disproportionate length given to Government statements compared with statements by ordinary private Members. He has taken that very much to heart. I hope that, after the Recess, there will be a regular weekly Parliamentary report which will be much longer than the usual report.

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.